ReportWire

Tag: Lawsuit

  • Judge tosses out X lawsuit against hate-speech researchers, saying Elon Musk tried to punish critics

    Judge tosses out X lawsuit against hate-speech researchers, saying Elon Musk tried to punish critics

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X Corp. against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate, ruling that the case was about “punishing” the research group for its speech.

    The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) has documented the increase in hate speech on the site since it was acquired by the Tesla owner in 2022. X, formerly known as Twitter, sued the nonprofit last year, claiming the center’s researchers violated the site’s terms of service by improperly compiling public tweets. 

    X argued that the CCDH’s reports on the rise of hate speech on the service had cost it millions of dollars when advertisers fled. On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer dismissed the suit, writing in his order that it was “unabashedly and vociferously about one thing” — punishing the nonprofit for its speech.

    In a statement posted to X, the social media platform said it “disagrees with the court’s decision and plans to appeal.”

    It’s not the only time Musk’s X has sued after a group flagged issues with hate speech on the social media platform. 

    Last November, several big advertisers including IBM, NBCUniversal and its parent company Comcast, said that they stopped advertising on X after a report from the liberal advocacy group Media Matters said their ads were appearing alongside material praising Nazis. The report proved to be yet another setback as X sought to win back big brands and their ad dollars, X’s main source of revenue. 

    In November, X sued Media Matters, alleging that the group was trying to “drive advertisers from the platform and destroy X Corp.” 

    Later that month, Musk went on an expletive-ridden rant in response to advertisers that halted spending on X in response to antisemitic and other hateful material, saying they are are engaging in “blackmail” and, using a profanity, essentially told them to go away.

    Seeking millions from CCDH

    In suing the CCDH, X had sought millions of dollars in damages from group, arguing that the nonprofit’s reports led to the exodus of advertisers and the loss of ad revenue.

    But the judge agreed with CCDH’s argument saying X cannot seek damages for the independent acts of third parties based on CCDH’s reports, or its “speech.”

    X had also alleged that the CCDH had “scraped” its site for data, which is against its terms of service. But the judge found that X failed to “allege losses based on technological harms” — that is, the company didn’t show how the scraping led to financial losses for X.

    The center is a nonprofit with offices in the U.S. and United Kingdom. It regularly publishes reports on hate speech, extremism or harmful behavior on social media platforms like X, TikTok or Facebook. The organization has published several reports critical of Musk’s leadership, detailing a rise in anti-LGBTQ hate speech as well as climate misinformation since his purchase.

    “Hypocritical campaign of harassment”

    Imran Ahmed, the center’s founder and CEO, said the lawsuit amounted to a “hypocritical campaign of harassment” by a billionaire who talks about protecting free speech but who then uses his wealth to try to silence his critics. He said the lawsuit shows the need for a federal law requiring tech companies to release more information about their operations, so that the public can understand how these powerful platforms are shaping society.

    “We hope this landmark ruling will embolden public-interest researchers everywhere to continue, and even intensify, their vital work of holding social media companies accountable for the hate and disinformation they host and the harm they cause,” said Ahmed.

    Roberta Kaplan, the center’s attorney, said the dismissal of X’s suit shows “even the wealthiest man cannot bend the rule of law to his will.”

    “We are living in an age of bullies, and it’s social media that gives them the power that they have today,” Kaplan said in an email to reporters. “It takes great courage to stand up to these bullies; it takes an organization like the Center for Countering Digital Hate. We are proud and honored to represent CCDH.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Domino and other U.S. sugar companies accused of conspiring to fix prices in antitrust lawsuits

    Domino and other U.S. sugar companies accused of conspiring to fix prices in antitrust lawsuits

    [ad_1]

    Three antitrust lawsuits filed by food businesses in federal court in Minnesota this week accuse some of the largest U.S. sugar-producing companies of conspiring to fix prices.

    The lawsuits name United Sugars, which includes American Crystal Sugar and the Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative; Domino Sugar; Cargill; other producers, and a commodity data company. The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuits include Great Harvest Bread in Duluth, Morelos Bakery in St. Paul and the Connecticut restaurant group WNT, the Star Tribune reported.

    “Since at least 2019, the Producing Defendants have had an ongoing agreement to artificially raise, fix, stabilize or maintain Granulated Sugar prices in the United States,” one of the lawsuits alleges. “To effectuate this agreement, the Producing Defendants engaged in price signaling and exchanges of detailed, accurate, non-public, competitively sensitive information.”

    The lawsuits, which make broadly similar claims, seek injunctions barring the sugar companies from engaging in illegal conduct and unspecified damages.

    The sugar industry, which is dominated by a handful of large companies, has faced antitrust scrutiny for decades. A 1978 consent decree banned sugar companies from communicating about future prices or coordinating on sugar sales. 

    Minnesota grows more sugar beets than any other state. United Sugars, which is based in Edina, called the claims baseless.


    Grocery prices remain high: Experts say several factors are to blame

    01:58

    “While it is our longstanding practice to not comment extensively on litigation, we believe this case has no merit, and we will vigorously defend ourselves from its baseless accusations,” the company said in a statement.

    Minnetonka-based agribusiness giant Cargill also denied the allegations.

    “We take pride in conducting our business with integrity,” Cargill said in a statement. “We compete vigorously but do so fairly, ethically and in compliance with the law.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justice Department files antitrust lawsuit against Apple over its iPhone

    Justice Department files antitrust lawsuit against Apple over its iPhone

    [ad_1]

    Justice Department files antitrust lawsuit against Apple over its iPhone – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The Justice Department Thursday filed a massive antitrust lawsuit against Apple, alleging the tech giant unfairly tries to keep users hooked on iPhones, and charges high fees to app developers which ultimately cost consumers money. Jo Ling Kent has details.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DOJ targets Apple in antitrust lawsuit, alleging monopoly practices

    DOJ targets Apple in antitrust lawsuit, alleging monopoly practices

    [ad_1]

    DOJ targets Apple in antitrust lawsuit, alleging monopoly practices – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The U.S. Justice Department has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple that accuses the company of monopolizing the smartphone market. This landmark case could have significant implications for both iPhone and Android users.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 3/21: CBS Evening News

    3/21: CBS Evening News

    [ad_1]

    3/21: CBS Evening News – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Escaped Idaho inmate and suspected gunman who ambushed officers in custody; Ghost Army, top-secret WWII unit that relied on deception, awarded Congressional Gold Medal

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 3/21: Prime Time with John Dickerson

    3/21: Prime Time with John Dickerson

    [ad_1]

    3/21: Prime Time with John Dickerson – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    John Dickerson reports on the Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit against Apple, the capture of an escaped prisoner in Idaho, and Reddit’s stock market debut.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Antitrust lawsuits accuse major U.S. sugar companies of conspiring to fix prices

    Antitrust lawsuits accuse major U.S. sugar companies of conspiring to fix prices

    [ad_1]

    Three antitrust lawsuits filed by food businesses in federal court in Minnesota this week accuse some of the largest U.S. sugar-producing companies of conspiring to fix prices.

    The lawsuits name United Sugars, which includes American Crystal Sugar and the Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative; Domino Sugar; Cargill; other producers, and a commodity data company. The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuits include Great Harvest Bread in Duluth, Morelos Bakery in St. Paul and the Connecticut restaurant group WNT, the Star Tribune reported.

    “Since at least 2019, the Producing Defendants have had an ongoing agreement to artificially raise, fix, stabilize or maintain Granulated Sugar prices in the United States,” one of the lawsuits alleges. “To effectuate this agreement, the Producing Defendants engaged in price signaling and exchanges of detailed, accurate, non-public, competitively sensitive information.”

    The lawsuits, which make broadly similar claims, seek injunctions barring the sugar companies from engaging in illegal conduct and unspecified damages.

    READ MORE: U.S. hits Apple with landmark antitrust suit, accusing tech giant of stifling competition

    Minnesota grows more sugar beets than any other state. The sugar industry, which is dominated by a handful of large companies, has faced antitrust scrutiny for decades. A 1978 consent decree banned sugar companies from communicating about future prices or coordinating on sugar sales.

    United Sugars, which is based in Edina, called the claims baseless.

    “While it is our longstanding practice to not comment extensively on litigation, we believe this case has no merit, and we will vigorously defend ourselves from its baseless accusations,” the company said in a statement.

    Minnetonka-based agribusiness giant Cargill also denied the allegations.

    “We take pride in conducting our business with integrity,” Cargill said in a statement. “We compete vigorously but do so fairly, ethically and in compliance with the law.”

    [ad_2]

    CBS Minnesota

    Source link

  • Evolution Seeks to Reveal the Identity of Rival Who Alleged Misconduct

    Evolution Seeks to Reveal the Identity of Rival Who Alleged Misconduct

    [ad_1]

    Back in 2021, an anonymous company submitted a report in which it alleged that live specialist Evolution had been involved in misconduct and had operated its products in prohibited jurisdictions. Years later, the former company’s identity might finally be revealed, should Evolution’s lawsuit succeed.

    For reference, Evolution denied the original claims, slamming them as defamatory. Despite that, the company experienced significant losses because of the report as shareholders reacted sharply.

    Claiming that the report sought to sabotage its business, Evolution launched a lawsuit against Calcagni & Kanefsky, a law firm that had represented its anonymous competitor and the competitor itself. As part of the lawsuit, Evolution requested the identity of its rival to be revealed.

    Eventually, the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (NJDGE) concluded that Evolution had violated no rules. This was also echoed in the results of the company’s internal review which saw it carefully examine its business.

    Evolution May Be Emboldened by the Result of the Probe

    Calcagni & Kanefsky tried to challenge Evolution’s lawsuit but had little success. As a result, the court ordered the identity of the law firm’s client to be disclosed. However, Calcagni & Kanefsky was able to appeal this decision to the Appellate Court, which eventually referred the case to the trial court.

    The Appellate Court added that the results of the NJDGE investigation might also be a factor. As mentioned, the New Jersey regulator did not find evidence of misconduct and closed its probe into Evolution’s business.

    While there is no certainty that the outcome of the lawsuit will be affected by the results of the NJDGE probe, Evolution seems to be intent on striking back. In addition to attempting to publicly unmask its competitors, Evolution is also seeking damages and attorney fees, Next.io reported.

    Considering Evolution’s leading position in the world of live casino content and the fact that the lawsuit has been running for over two years, it is possible that all parties involved are in for a pricey lawsuit.

    In the meantime, Evolution has to deal with another lawsuit, as Pomerantz, a law firm specializing in securities litigation, announced the filing of a class action, alleging that the company had engaged in unlawful business practices.

    [ad_2]

    Fiona Simmons

    Source link

  • Judge rejects Apple’s request to toss out lawsuit over AirTag stalking

    Judge rejects Apple’s request to toss out lawsuit over AirTag stalking

    [ad_1]

    Howard County Police hand out AirTags and SmartTags to track stolen Hyundais and Kias


    Howard County Police hand out AirTags and SmartTags to track stolen Hyundais and Kias

    02:08

    A judge on Tuesday denied Apple’s motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit claiming that stalkers are using its AirTag devices to track victims and that the tech giant hasn’t done enough to stop them.

    Apple’s $29 AirTags have become popular items since their 2021 release, helping users keep tabs on the location of anything from their lost keys to wallets and luggage. But the small bluetooth devices that owners attach to their key chains or keep in their bags and purses to locate their personal belongings, have been misused by stalkers who are tracking their targets’ every move.

    In December 2022, Apple was sued by dozens of plaintiffs who said they were stalked by AirTag users. They alleged that Apple failed to mitigate such dangers and should have done more to protect victims — claiming AirTags “revolutionized the scope, breadth, and ease of location-based stalking” and that current safety features are inadequate.

    Apple attempted to dismiss the litigation in a filing last year, arguing the company “took proactive steps to try to deter misuse” and that it should not bear liability for injuries caused by third parties. But San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed that motion on Friday.

    Chhabria ruled that, while most of the class-action plaintiffs’ claims were “inadequately pled,” three can proceed for negligence and strict product liability under California law. The remaining claims were dismissed in a separate order.


    NYPD turning to Apple AirTags in new attempt to stop car thefts

    02:28

    “Apple may ultimately be right that California law did not require it to do more to diminish the ability of stalkers to use AirTags effectively, but that determination cannot be made at this early stage,” Chhabria wrote.

    Chhabria detailed arguments from both Apple and the plaintiffs in the ruling. Included were accounts from the three remaining claims of victims being stalked by former partners or others through AirTags that were allegedly attached to their cars, resulting in emotional and sometimes financial harm.

    All three of these cases involve “purported defects” of AirTags that made it harder for the victims to both understand the tracking and quickly stop it, Friday’s ruling outlines, including unclear or delayed notifications, as well as an inability to disable the devices remotely, which allegedly prolonged stalking.

    “We’re grateful for the opportunity to continue this critical litigation,” Gillian L. Wade, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told The Associated Press via email. “Abusive and dangerous location tracking is only becoming more common, so it’s imperative to do everything we can to give voice to the victims, and to push for accountability and change.”


    AirTag helps victim, police take down man accused of selling cars, then stealing them back

    01:54

    Apple and attorneys representing the California-based company did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

    Back in February 2022, months ahead of the class action filing, Apple released a statement that said it “condemn(s) in the strongest possible terms any malicious use of our products.” It also noted then-planned updates aimed at increasing safety.

    Last year, Apple also partnered with Google to submit a proposal aimed at setting standards for combatting secret surveillance on AirTags and similar gadgets.

    Experts have been aware of the tags’ vulnerabilities since their release in April 2021. Washington Post tech columnist Geoffrey Fowler, who tested the tags when they came out, described them as being “terrifyingly good” at tracking things and also possibly helping stalkers. 

    Fowler said a colleague slipped an AirTag into Fowler’s bag with his permission and tracked him for one week.

    “When I was riding my bike around town, it could update him on my whereabouts every couple of minutes,” Fowler told CBS News Streaming at the time. 

    “So it’s a double-edged sword with this kind of technology, and I think we need to talk more about it,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Discrimination lawsuit brought by transgender athlete sent back to Minnesota trial court

    Discrimination lawsuit brought by transgender athlete sent back to Minnesota trial court

    [ad_1]

    A Minnesota appeals court has sent the lawsuit brought by a transgender athlete back to a trial court to determine whether she was illegally denied entry into women’s competitions because of her gender identity.

    JayCee Cooper, a transgender woman, sued USA Powerlifting in 2021 after the organization denied her 2018 request for participation. She alleged the organization violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act, an anti-discrimination law which includes gender identity.

    Last year, a district court judge found that USA Powerlifting had discriminated against Cooper. USA Powerlifting appealed, and Cooper cross-appealed. In its lengthy Monday decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, reversed and sent back parts of the case.

    Judge Matthew Johnson wrote: “The circumstantial evidence on which Cooper relies, when viewed in a light most favorable to her, is sufficient to allow a fact-finder to draw inferences and thereby find that USAPL excluded Cooper from its competitions because of her sexual orientation (i.e., transgender status).”

    Gender Justice Legal Director Jess Braverman, an attorney for Cooper, said, “We agree that it’s illegal to discriminate against transgender people in Minnesota, but we think it’s crystal clear that that’s what USA Powerlifting did in this case, so we don’t agree with the court’s ultimate conclusion that the case needs to go back for a trial, and we’re currently weighing all of our options.”

    Cooper could ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the decision, or go back to the lower court to keep litigating the case, Braverman said.

    Ansis Viksnins, USA Powerlifting’s lead attorney, welcomed the decision as having “corrected some of the mistakes” made by the lower court and has given their side an opportunity “to tell our side of the story” to a jury.

    “USA Powerlifting did not exclude Ms. Cooper because of her gender identity,” Viksnins said. “USA Powerlifting excluded her from competing in the women’s division because of her physiology. She was born biologically male and went through puberty as a male, and as a result, she has significant strength advantages over other people who would be competing in the women’s division.”

    Cooper asked USA Powerlifting for a “therapeutic-use exemption” to take spironolactone, a medicine prescribed to treat her gender dysphoria, “but JayCee was denied because she’s transgender,” Braverman said.

    She filed a complaint in 2019 with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, but withdrew it before reaching a decision. The department filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit in support of Cooper, Braverman said.

    In schools and private clubs across the country, transgender people’s participation in sports has become a contentious issue. Many Republican-led states have banned transgender people from participating in high school and collegiate sports.

    Last week, a group of college athletes, including swimmer Riley Gaines, sued the NCAA, alleging the organization violated their Title IX rights by allowing Lia Thomas, who is a transgender woman, to compete in the 2022 national championships.

    [ad_2]

    CBS Minnesota

    Source link

  • Two Detroit cops used excessive force when they killed a Black man in 2018, jury finds

    Two Detroit cops used excessive force when they killed a Black man in 2018, jury finds

    [ad_1]

    A jury has awarded $1.5 million to the family of a Black Detroit man killed by two cops on the city’s west side in October 2018.

    The jury on Tuesday found that Detroit cops Tyler Nagy and Raul Martinez used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when they fatally shot Lamont Johnson on the 14000 block of Tireman.

    Johnson’s family sued the officers and police department in October 2020, alleging gross negligence, wrongful death, and violations of Johnson’s civil and constitutional rights. Some of those claims were later dismissed.

    During the trial, the department’s own police procedures expert said he reviewed video of the shooting and did not see Johnson reach for a gun because the film was too dark.

    Police were called to the area at 9 p.m. on Oct. 28, 2018, on a report that Johnson was intoxicated and armed with a handgun. On a dark street, officers found Johnson standing next to his bike, shined a flashlight in his eyes and shouted, “Hands!”

    Less than three seconds later, both officers opened fire on Johnson, who had a handgun in his waistband.

    Mark E. Boegehold, an attorney for Johnson’s family, argued that Johnson didn’t have time to reach for the gun.

    “We alleged that a reasonable police officer would not have shot him because we didn’t see any movement from Lamont, and there wasn’t enough time for him to reach for a gun – 2.5 seconds is not enough time,” Boegehold tells Metro Times. “What they think they saw was not what happened. That’s what we presented to the jury.”

    The officers weren’t accused of intentionally executing Johnson.

    The cops said they believed Johnson was reaching for the handgun in his waistband and thought their lives were in danger, so they fired.

    The officers are still on the force, and the shooting prompted the Detroit Police Officers Association union to award them “District Officers of the Year,” claiming Johnson “removed his .32-caliber pistol from his waistband and started to raise it.”

    Nagy was promoted to sergeant in December 2022, and the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners unanimously approved the promotion.

    In a statement to Metro Times, DPD defended the officers.

    “A comprehensive internal investigation into officers’ actions revealed no policy violations,” DPD said. “Accordingly, the officers continue to work for the DPD. While the Department respects the jurors’ work in this matter, we ultimately disagree with their findings. It is our understanding that the City of Detroit will be appealing this decision.”

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Apple can’t get out of facing a class-action lawsuit over AirTags stalking claims

    Apple can’t get out of facing a class-action lawsuit over AirTags stalking claims

    [ad_1]

    A San Francisco judge has ruled that Apple must face a lawsuit accusing the company of negligence over the potential stalking risks created by its AirTags,  reports. While the bulk of the roughly three dozen claims in the class-action suit were dismissed, US District Judge Vince Chhabria denied Apple’s bid to have the suit thrown out based on three plaintiffs’ claims alleging that “when they were stalked, the problems with the AirTag’s safety features were substantial, and that those safety defects caused their injuries.”

    While the suit argues that Apple was warned of the potential for its Bluetooth item trackers to be misused and thus should be held liable under California law, Apple disagrees, according to Bloomberg. After it released AirTags, Apple later rolled out safety features designed to thwart stalking attempts, like an update that made it so AirTags would emit a loud sound when they get a certain distance from their owner and notifications about unknown trackers. Apple and Google also last year announced that they’re working together on developing industry standards to proactively fight the misuse of tracking devices.

    Nevertheless, the lawsuit argues that AirTags have “become the weapon of choice of stalkers and abusers,” Bloomberg reports. The case was filed in the Northern California district court.

    [ad_2]

    Cheyenne MacDonald

    Source link

  • New rules aim to prevent

    New rules aim to prevent

    [ad_1]

    New rules aim to prevent “judge shopping” in major court cases – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal agency that sets guidelines for America’s judiciary, has taken a major step to stop plaintiffs from seeking the most favorable judge for their case, a practice known as “judge shopping.” CBS News legal contributor Jessica Levinson explains.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Flint funeral home goes quiet after judge orders release of Councilman Mays’s body

    Flint funeral home goes quiet after judge orders release of Councilman Mays’s body

    [ad_1]

    City of Flint

    Flint City Councilman Eric Mays.

    A judge ordered a funeral home to release Flint City Councilman Eric Mays’s body to his only son Monday, but that didn’t happen.

    Mays’s son Eric HaKeem Deontaye Mays arrived at the Lawrence E. Moon Funeral Home in Flint on Monday evening with a hearse, expecting to move his father to a new funeral home in Saginaw.

    But no one was at the Lawrence E. Moon Funeral Home, and its attorney refused to comply with the order, Mays’s lawyer Joseph Cannizzo tells Metro Times.

    A man who answered the phone at the funeral home declined to comment Tuesday morning.

    Mays’s son filed a lawsuit last week against the funeral home and his four siblings last week. The lawsuit accused the funeral home of holding Mays’s body “hostage” by refusing to turn it over to the son. The lawsuit also alleged Mays’s four siblings conspired to seize control of Mays’s body and profit from “their fraudulent scheme” by soliciting donations from the community for funeral services.

    Judge Brian S. Pickell of Michigan’s 7th Circuit Court said the son, as next of kin, had the right to make funeral arrangements, not Mays’s siblings.

    After the ruling, Mays arranged for the body to be transferred to the Paradise Funeral Chapel in Saginaw.

    Mays, a passionate and sometimes combative councilman and TikTok sensation, died at his home on Feb. 24 but didn’t leave behind a will, according to the suit.

    The suit alleged that two of Mays’s siblings lied to the Genesee County Medical Examiner’s Office by saying the councilman had no children. A third sibling, who is an employee of the funeral home, falsely claimed that he had legal authority to authorize the release of the body, the suit claimed.

    Mays’s son also filed a lawsuit against city officials on Friday, claiming they engaged in “a cruel act of retaliation” by withholding information about his father’s insurance benefits.

    Flint officials countered that the city could not turn over the information because Mays did not list a beneficiary with the city’s insurance companies. When no beneficiary is designated, “the policy is payable to the Employee’s estate,” Flint Human Resources Director Eddie Smith said in a statement, citing the city’s benefit policies.

    City officials said they are awaiting a probate court to designate a personal representative of Mays’s estate.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Doctor files whistleblower lawsuit against DMC after patient becomes quadriplegic

    Doctor files whistleblower lawsuit against DMC after patient becomes quadriplegic

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Steve Neavling

    Detroit Receiving Hospital is part of the Detroit Medical Center.

    A former medical resident at Detroit Medical Center is suing the hospital system, saying he was fired in retaliation for blowing the whistle on the mistreatment of a patient who subsequently became quadriplegic.

    Joseph Owens was terminated from the residency program in November, less than a month after he notified his supervisor of a series of avoidable missteps, according to the lawsuit filed Wednesday in Wayne County Circuit Court.

    A 69-year-old man was admitted to Detroit Receiving Hospital for an acute kidney injury on Aug. 24, 2023, complaining of weakness and a possible seizure.

    Even though hospital staff knew he was a fall risk, the patient was placed in a sitting position on his hospital bed, with his feet on the floor and a bedside table in front of him, so that he could eat dinner. A hospital employee, known as a sitter, should have restrained the patient so he didn’t fall, but did not, according to the lawsuit against Tenet, which owns DMC.

    The lawsuit also names Wayne State University, where Owens was enrolled in the medical residency program, and his superior, Dr. Shaheena Raheem.

    After the patient’s eyes rolled back, he fell to the ground, striking his head and seriously injuring his spine. It appeared he had been having what is known as a grand mal seizure, according to the suit.

    Despite the serious injuries, the patient was not taken to the intensive care unit, and there was no staff available to give him a head CT scan.

    The next morning, the patient “was unable to move any of his extremities,” the lawsuit states.

    It was later determined that he was a quadriplegic as a result of his spinal injuries and likely would never move his arms or feet again.

    Although Owens was one of several residents and doctors in the room after the fall, he faced all of the criticism, he says.

    Raheem sent him a letter on Sept. 6, complaining of his patient care. She also alleged he was unprofessional and chronically tardy.

    Owens responded to Raheem a month later, saying the patient was “a fall risk” but was not properly secured by the sitter, which amounted to malpractice, the suit alleges. Owens says he was following the orders of his superior and did nothing wrong.

    “The sitter for the patient breached the standard of care by not adhering to the fall risk when the patient was admitted,” the lawsuit states.

    In an interview with Metro Times, Owens says he was terminated for blowing the whistle.

    “I told the truth. That’s all I did,” Owens says.

    DMC declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation.

    “At the end of the day, we had a person who walked into the hospital and was rolled out,” Owens’s attorney Dionne Webster-Cox tells Metro Times. “That’s what happened.”

    According to Owens, there are “systemic problems” at DMC that deprive patients of decent care. For example, he says, a nursing staff shortage makes it impossible for many patients to receive timely attention.

    “There wasn’t enough nursing staff to get a CT scan,” Owens says. “That should have happened within an hour. [The fall] happened around 5:30, and I was assured that he was going to get a CT scan at 7:30. It’s really sad that any of this happened.”

    The CT scan wasn’t done until the next day.

    Owens hoped to finish his residency and then take over his mother’s internal medicine practice in Florida. But he can’t do that without the completed residency.

    DMC’s claims, which he says are false, are making it very difficult for him to get accepted into a new residency program.

    “It has devastated my life,” Owens says. “I can’t get the jobs I want, and I have all this debt.”

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Ex-probation chief’s suit alleges L.A. County fired him for being a whistleblower

    Ex-probation chief’s suit alleges L.A. County fired him for being a whistleblower

    [ad_1]

    Former Los Angeles County Probation Department chief Adolfo Gonzales, who was fired last March amid widepread dysfunction at the agency’s juvenile halls, alleges in a lawsuit that he was ousted for reporting dire staffing shortages to state regulators.

    Gonzales’ two-year, one-month tenure was marked by near-constant controversies. But in a lawsuit filed last month, he argued that county supervisors decided to terminate him only after he was frank with inspectors from the Board of State and Community Corrections about the agency’s staffing crisis.

    The board, referred to as the BSCC, has the power to shut down juvenile detention facilities if inspections reveal that conditions aren’t up to state standards.

    “Gonzales candidly reported to the BSCC inspectors the staffing shortages in Probation Department which caused lack of compliance with various California State regulations and mandates,” the lawsuit says. “As a result of Gonzales’ reports to BSCC, he was terminated by the County.”

    The state board declined to comment. Mira Hashmall, outside counsel for L.A. County, called the lawsuit baseless.

    “The Probation Department suffered from a lack of leadership under Adolfo Gonzales, which is why his employment was terminated,” she wrote in a statement to The Times. “He is no whistleblower.”

    Under Gonzales’ leadership, the perennially struggling agency careened from one problem to the next. There were more lockdowns, more fights and fewer staff members to deal with them. Deputies said they were too scared of the violence inside the juvenile halls to come to work. Youths were traumatized too, forced to urinate in their locked rooms because no one was around to let them out.

    Gonzales’ attorney, Michael Conger, said his client’s account of staffing issues heavily influenced a Jan. 13, 2023, report from state inspectors, which found, among other shortcomings, that the county’s two juvenile halls were dangerously short-staffed. Months later, the board would shut down the two halls after the county repeatedly failed to improve conditions.

    Conger said it was Gonzales’ “candid” portrayal of staffing problems that led to his termination two months later.

    The state inspection was not the only embarrassment Gonzales’ agency suffered in the months leading up to his firing, however. On Feb. 11, 2023, The Times reported that Gonzales overrode an internal disciplinary board’s recommendation to fire an officer who had violently restrained a 17-year-old. After The Times’ report, a majority of the Board of Supervisors called for Gonzales’ resignation.

    Gonzales’ attorney said this was not what earned the board’s ire.

    “We don’t believe that had anything to do with it,” he said. “That was a complete non-issue. They were not mad at that.”

    Records show the county spent more than $900,000 on Gonzales during his stint with the department.

    By the time he left, Gonzales had received $927,000 in compensation, according to county salary data. It’s unclear if that figure includes other perks Gonzales was entitled to under his employment agreement with the county, which promised relocation costs and severance pay.

    According to his employment agreement, reviewed by The Times, Gonzales was entitled to up to $25,000 to relocate from San Diego, where he worked for five years running the county’s Probation Department.

    Records show he also received $172,521 — equivalent to six months’ salary — as severance pay after he was fired.

    The board replaced Gonzales with Guillermo Viera Rosa, promising a new chapter for the long-troubled agency. But so far, his tenure has been plagued by the same staffing crisis that haunted his predecessor.

    A report released Thursday from the county’s Office of Inspector General found that “dangerously low staffing levels” had contributed to the chaotic Nov. 4 escape of a youth from Los Padrinos juvenile hall. After several teens attacked a staff member, one briefly escaped to a neighboring golf course.

    At the time of the incident, only one staff member — who had never before been assigned to juvenile halls — had been in the unit with 14 youths, the report’s authors found. The report notes the staffing level violates state law, which requires the agency maintain a ratio of one staff member for 10 youths.

    That day, the Probation Department had scheduled 100 staff members to work at the facility — the minimum required in order to operate.

    Sixty of them didn’t show up.

    [ad_2]

    Rebecca Ellis

    Source link

  • Legal battle halts funeral plans for late Flint Councilman Eric Mays

    Legal battle halts funeral plans for late Flint Councilman Eric Mays

    [ad_1]

    City of Flint

    Flint City Councilman Eric Mays.

    The siblings of deceased Flint Councilman Eric Mays cannot move forward with a funeral for their brother this week amid a lawsuit over who has the rights to his remains, a judge ruled Thursday.

    The decision comes several days after Mays’s son, Eric HaKeem Deontaye Mays, filed a lawsuit that alleges the Lawrence E. Moon Funeral Home in Flint is holding his father’s body “hostage.”

    The lawsuit accuses Mays’s four siblings of conspiring to unlawfully seize control of the former councilman’s remains and profit from “their fraudulent scheme” by soliciting donations from the community for funeral services.

    Judge Brian S. Pickell of Michigan’s 7th Circuit Court declined to make a final decision on the lawsuit because all four of Mays’s siblings have not yet been properly served. But Pickell said the siblings cannot hold a funeral until further notice. The judge also said Mays’s son has a right to view his father’s body.

    “Though I am disappointed that this dispute will continue, I believe we are one step closer to giving my father the proper funeral service and burial I know he wanted,” HaKeem Deontaye Mays said in a statement. “I am anxious to see my father’s remains to ensure he was properly cared for by the Moon Funeral Home since the day he passed away. I would like to thank everyone in the Flint community and across the country who has supported me while I’ve been forced to fight the kind of fight no son wants to have to fight after losing his father.”

    The judge recessed the hearing until Monday.

    “We are hopeful that when we are before Judge Pickell again this coming Monday, March 11, we will be able to resolve this dispute in favor of our client and begin preparations to lay the late Councilman to rest,” the son’s attorney Wayne Pollock said.

    Mays, a passionate and combative councilman and TikTok sensation, died at his home on Feb. 24 but didn’t leave behind a will, according to the suit, which claims only his son has next-of-kin rights to handle the remains.

    The suit alleges that two of Mays’s siblings lied to the Genesee County Medical Examiner’s Office and said that Mays had no children. A third sibling, who is an employee of the funeral home, falsely claimed that he had legal authority to authorize the release of the body, the suit claims.

    Now the funeral home is refusing to turn over Mays’s body to his son, even though Eric Mays provided the company with the required documentation to release the remains to him, according to the suit.

    Mays’s son is asking the judge to order the release of his father’s remains to a funeral home that he chooses.

    Mays was a popular and quarrelsome councilman who often posted his clashes with the council on his TikTok channel, which had more than 220,000 followers. His followers appreciated his unfiltered advocacy for Flint residents.

    First elected to the council in 2013, Mays was one of the first public officials to voice concerns about the water crisis that began in 2014. While other state and city officials downplayed the crisis, Mays was an unwavering advocate for residents.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • 3 passengers on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 where door plug blew out sue the airline and Boeing for $1 billion

    3 passengers on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 where door plug blew out sue the airline and Boeing for $1 billion

    [ad_1]

    Three passengers on the Alaska Airlines plane that had to make an emergency landing after a door plug blew off mid-flight are suing the airline and Boeing for $1 billion, claiming negligence caused the incident.

    A complaint was filed Feb. 20 in Multnomah County, Oregon, on behalf of Kyle Rinker, Amanda Strickland and Kevin Kwok, all of whom were on board Alaska Flight 1282 when an unused exit door detached from the aircraft minutes into a scheduled trip from Portland to Ontario, California, in early January. Multnomah County includes Portland.

    The lawsuit seeks both compensatory and punitive damages, to be determined at trial, from Boeing, the corporate giant that manufactured the 737 Max 9 jet flown by Alaska Airlines. 

    “As a direct result of the frightful, death-threatening failure of the Boeing aircraft, Mr. Kwok, Mr. Rinker, and Ms. Strickland suffered severe mental, emotional, and psychological injuries, including post-traumatic stress, and physical injuries,” the lawsuit says, noting how the sudden pressure change inside the cabin “caused some passengers’ ears to bleed.”

    Jonathan W. Johnson, LLC, an aviation law firm based in Atlanta that filed the complaint on behalf of Kwok, Rinker and Strickland, said in a news release that it hopes “to hold Boeing accountable for its negligence which had caused extreme panic, fear, and post-traumatic stress.” It called the blow-out on flight 1282 ” a preventable incident” that not only threatened the lives of passengers and crew on board that specific plane, but others manufactured by Boeing that were found during subsequent investigations to have similar defects.

    The lawsuit alleges the incident on Flight 1282 is “just one terrible chapter in the evolving story of Boeing and Alaska Airlines placing profits above safety.”

    Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 took off from Portland International Airport just before 5 p.m. PT on Jan. 5, according to the flight tracking website FlightAware, and returned safely to same origin spot as part of an emergency landing around 40 minutes later. The aircraft was about six minutes into its planned trip to California, and flying at 16,000 feet, when one of the exit doors came loose. Social media video obtained by CBS News at the time showed a gaping hole in the side of the plane, which at the time was carrying 174 passengers and six crew members.

    Although the plane landed safely back in Portland, several passengers suffered minor injuries and lost phones and other personal belongings that were sucked out of the hole in the aircraft. One passenger, a teenager originally seated with his mother in the row beside the affected door panel, had his shirt ripped off by the strength of the wind barreling through, another passenger, Kelly Bartlett, told CBS News senior transportation and national correspondent Kris an Cleave after it happened.

    Preliminary results of an investigation by the National Transportation and Safety Board into the incident found that four key bolts meant to hold the door plug in place were missing from the aircraft. The agency said in a report released in early February that “four bolts that prevent upward movement of the MED plug were missing before the MED plug moved upward off the stop pads.”

    In the wake of the incident, Alaska Airlines and United Airlines canceled flights on Boeing 737 Max 9 planes as inspections got underway. Both airlines said they found loose hardware on grounded planes of that model. The Federal Aviation Administration ultimately ordered a temporary global grounding of all Boeing 737 Max 9 jets for “immediate inspection,” and is conducting an ongoing probe into the aircraft to figure out what went wrong on flight 1282, and whether Boeing “failed to ensure” that its aircrafts “were in a condition for safe operation in compliance with FAA regulations.”

    “This incident should have never happened and it cannot happen again,” the agency said in a statement in January. “The FAA is continuing to support the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation into the Jan. 5 door plug incident.”

    Boeing is facing another class-action lawsuit brought by passengers on the Alaska Airlines flight, which alleges that the Jan. 5 incident “physically injured some passengers and emotionally traumatized most if not all on board.” Alaska Airlines has not been named as a defendant in that suit.

    CBS News contacted both Boeing and Alaska Airlines for comment on the latest $1 billion suit. The airline said it could not “comment on pending ligation or the ongoing NTSB investigation,” while Boeing said, “We don’t have anything to add.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Proposed class action lawsuit accuses Apple of monopolizing cloud storage for its devices

    Proposed class action lawsuit accuses Apple of monopolizing cloud storage for its devices

    [ad_1]

    A class action complaint filed against Apple on Friday in the northern California court has accused the company of creating unfair conditions to ensure iCloud remains the dominant cloud storage choice for its devices, according to . By placing “surgical technological restraints” on the types of files other cloud providers can host, Apple has made it so only iCloud can offer Apple device users full-service storage, the complaint argues. According to the complaint, this has also allowed Apple to charge higher fees in the absence of “any real threat to iCloud’s dominance.”

    The proposed class, represented by Hagens Berman, would cover tens of millions of customers in the US, Bloomberg Law notes. While iPhone and iPad users do have the option to store certain types of files with non-Apple cloud storage providers, there are some things — including app data and device settings — that only iCloud has permission to host. This leaves users to choose either the “unattractive” option of juggling multiple cloud storage accounts to fully cover their backup needs, or iCloud’s full-service convenience. The complaint argues that Apple’s restrictions are arbitrary and work to stifle competition.

    Apple “does not dominate because it built a superior cloud-storage product,” the complaint states. “From a security and functionality standpoint, iCloud is no better (and often inferior) to other cloud storage platforms. Instead, Apple has achieved market dominance by rigging the competitive playing field so that only iCloud can win.” The case was only just filed and hasn’t yet been granted class action status, but anyone who thinks they may be eligible to get in on it can fill out a form on the to find out more information.

    [ad_2]

    Cheyenne MacDonald

    Source link

  • Elon Musk sues OpenAI and Sam Altman for allegedly ditching non-profit mission

    Elon Musk sues OpenAI and Sam Altman for allegedly ditching non-profit mission

    [ad_1]

    OpenAI co-founder Elon Musk has sued the company, his fellow co-founders, associated businesses and unidentified others. He claims that, by chasing profits, they’re violating OpenAI’s status as a non-profit and its foundational contractual agreements to develop AI “for the benefit of humanity.”

    The suit alleges that OpenAI has become a “closed-source de facto subsidiary” of Microsoft, which has invested $13 billion and holds a 49 percent stake. Microsoft uses OpenAI tech to power generative AI tools such as Copilot.

    According to the filing, under OpenAI’s current board, it is allegedly developing and refining an artificial general intelligence (AGI) “to maximize profits for Microsoft, rather than for the benefit of humanity. This was a stark betrayal of the Founding Agreement.”

    The suit defines AGI as “a machine having intelligence for a wide variety of tasks like a human.” Musk argues in the suit that GPT-4, which is purportedly “better at reasoning than average humans,” is tantamount to AGI and is “a de facto Microsoft proprietary algorithm.”

    Musk has long expressed concerns over AGI. He claims the theoretical tech posits “a grave threat to humanity,” particularly “in the hands of a closed, for-profit company like Google.”

    According to the filing, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and fellow co-founder Greg Brockman persuaded Musk to help them start the non-profit and to fund its early operations in a bid to counter Google’s advancements in the AGI space with DeepMind. He noted that their initial agreement called for OpenAI’s tech to be “freely available” to the public. Musk claims to have donated $44 million to the non-profit between 2016 and 2020 (he stepped down as an OpenAI board member in 2018). As TechCrunch reports, Musk previously said he was offered a stake in OpenAI’s for-profit subsidiary, but rejected it due to “a principled stand.”

    Muskl, of course, has some skin in the game. Since the public debut of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in November 2022, there’s been a battle between tech giants to offer the best generative AI tools. Musk joined that rat race when his AI company, xAI, rolled out ChatGPT rival Grok to Premium+ subscribers on his X social network last year.

    When Altman swiftly returned to power after OpenAI’s board shockingly fired him in November, he’s said to have appointed a new group of directors that is less technically minded and more business-focused. Microsoft was appointed as a non-voting observer. “The new board consisted of members with more experience in profit-centric enterprises or politics than in AI ethics and governance,” the lawsuit alleges.

    The suit accuses the defendants of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair business practices. Musk is seeking a jury trial and a ruling that forces OpenAI to stick to its original non-profit mission. He also wants it to be banned from monetizing tech it developed as a non-profit for the benefit of OpenAI leadership as well as Microsoft and other partners.

    Competition regulators in the US, the UK and European Union are said to be examining OpenAI’s partnership with Microsoft. It was reported this week that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether OpenAI misled investors. Several news organizations have sued OpenAI and Microsoft as well, alleging that ChatGPT repurposes their work “verbatim or nearly verbatim” without attribution, infringing upon their copyright in the process.

    In a couple of internal memos seen by Bloomberg, OpenAI said it “categorically disagrees” with the lawsuit Musk has filed. Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon denied that OpenAI has become a “de facto subsidiary” of Microsoft and said that Musk’s claims “may stem from [his] regrets about not being involved with the company today.” Altman also said in another memo that Musk is his hero and that he misses the person he knew who competed with others by building better technology.

    Update, March 02, 2023, 1:47AM ET: This story has been updated to include OpenAI’s internal memos about the lawsuit.

    This article contains affiliate links; if you click such a link and make a purchase, we may earn a commission.

    [ad_2]

    Kris Holt

    Source link