INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana’s attorney general has sued the state’s largest hospital system, claiming it violated patient privacy laws when a doctor publicly shared the story of an Ohio girl who traveled to Indiana for an abortion.
The lawsuit, filed Friday in Indianapolis federal court, marked Attorney General Todd Rokita’s latest attempt to seek disciplinary legal action against Dr. Caitlin Bernard. The doctor’s account of a 10-year-old rape victim traveling to Indiana to receive abortion drugs became a flashpoint in the abortion debate days after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer.
Rokita, a Republican, is stridently anti-abortion and Indiana was the first state to approve abortion restrictions after the court’s decision. The near-total abortion ban recently took effect after legal battles.
“Neither the 10-year-old nor her mother gave the doctor authorization to speak to the media about their case,” the lawsuit stated. “Rather than protecting the patient, the hospital chose to protect the doctor, and itself.”
The lawsuit named Indiana University Health and IU Healthcare Associates. It alleged the hospital system violated HIPPA, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and a state law for not protecting the patient’s information.
Indiana’s medical licensing board reprimanded Bernard in May, saying she didn’t abide by privacy laws by talking publicly about the girl’s treatment. It was far short of the medical license suspension that Rokita’s office sought.
Still, the board’s decision received widespread criticism from medical groups and others who called it a move to intimidate doctors.
Hospital system officials have argued that Bernard didn’t violate privacy laws.
“We continue to be disappointed the Indiana Attorney General’s office persists in putting the state’s limited resources toward this matter,” IU Health said in a statement. “We will respond directly to the AG’s office on the filing.”
Disney wants to narrow the scope of its federal lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis to just a free speech claim that the Florida governor retaliated against the company because of its public opposition to a state law banning classroom lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades.
Disney on Friday asked a federal judge for permission to file an amended complaint focusing just on the First Amendment claim and leaving to another, state-court lawsuit questions about the legality of agreements the company signed with Disney World’s governing district — the former Reedy Creek Improvement District board (RCID) — then-made up of Disney supporters.
DeSantis in February effectively gained control of the RCID which he then reconstituted as the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD). The governor appointed five people to replace the elected members of the RCID, and mused that he might impose taxes on Disney’s hotels or even place a prison next to Walt Disney World.
Disney made an end run around that maneuver, stripping the RCID’s board of much of its power, by having predecessors signed a development agreement with the company that gave Disney maximum developmental power over the theme park resort’s 27,000 acres in central Florida.
The agreements shifted control of design and construction at the theme park resort from the new DeSantis appointees on the board of the CFTOD, formerly the RCID, to Disney. The DeSantis appointees are now challenging the legality of the agreements in state court. DeSantis isn’t a party in the state court lawsuit.
Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill in February giving him control of Walt Disney World’s self-governing district, as punishment for the company’s public opposition to the state’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law. The legislation ignited an ongoing legal feud between the presidential candidate and the entertainment giant.
Ricardo Buxeda/Orlando Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
“Disney faces concrete, imminent, and ongoing injury as a result of CFTOD’s new powers and composition, which are being used to punish Disney for expressing a political view,” said Disney’s federal court motion.
“Unconstitutional weaponization of government”
The revised complaint would challenge “this unconstitutional weaponization of government by seeking a declaratory judgment that will allow Disney to pursue its future in Florida free from the ongoing retaliatory actions of the CFTOD Board,” Disney said.
Gay pride group photo taken in front of the Cinderella Castle at Disney World’s Magic Kingdom in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The legal fight between DeSantis and Disney began last year after the company, after facing significant pressure, publicly opposed a state law banning classroom lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades, dubbed “Don’t Say Gay.”
Photo by Thomas Simonetti for The Washington Post via Getty Images
U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor on Friday rejected Disney’s motion to narrow the scope because of a procedural rule requiring Disney attorneys to confer with DeSantis’ attorneys before filing such a request. The judge said Disney could refile its request after complying with the court rule. An email seeking comment was sent to Disney attorneys on Sunday.
The Disney request, as well as other recent motions filed in the state case, demonstrate how the fates of the two lawsuits have become intertwined, especially after Disney filed a counter-claim in the state case asserting many of the same claims made in the federal case. Disney filed the counter claim after the state court judge refused Disney’s request to dismiss the lawsuit.
The fight between DeSantis and Disney began last year after the company, facing significant pressure internally and externally, publicly opposed a state law banning classroom lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades, a policy critics call “Don’t Say Gay.”
DeSantis, a candidate for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, is seeking a dismissal of Disney’s lawsuit in Tallahassee federal court. The governor argues Disney is barred from filing a lawsuit because of legislative immunity protecting officials involved in the process of making laws and that the company lacks standing since it can’t show that it has been injured.
A federal judge has struck down a Texas law requiring age verification and health warnings to view pornographic websites and blocked the state attorney general’s office from enforcing it.
In a ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge David Ezra agreed with claims that House Bill 1181, which was signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in June, violates free speech rights and is overbroad and vague.
The state attorney general’s office, which is defending the law, immediately filed notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
The lawsuit was filed August 4 by the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult entertainment industry and a person identified as Jane Doe and described as an adult entertainer on various adult sites, including Pornhub.
“Government can log and track that access”
Judge Ezra also said the law, which was to take effect Friday, raises privacy concerns because a permissible age verification is using a traceable government-issued identification and the government has access to and is not required to delete the data.
“People will be particularly concerned about accessing controversial speech when the state government can log and track that access,” Ezra wrote. “By verifying information through government identification, the law will allow the government to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people’s lives.”
Ezra said Texas has a legitimate goal of protecting children from online sexual material, but noted other measures, including blocking and filtering software, exist.
“These methods are more effective and less restrictive in terms of protecting minors from adult content,” Ezra wrote.
The judge also found the law unconstitutionally compels speech by requiring adult sites to post health warnings they dispute — that pornography is addictive, impairs mental development and increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation and child sexual abuse images.
“The disclosures state scientific findings as a matter of fact, when in reality, they range from heavily contested to unsupported by the evidence,” Ezra wrote.
The Texas law is one of several similar age verification laws passed in other states, including Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah and Louisiana.
The Texas law carried fines of up to $10,000 per violation that could be raised to up to $250,000 per violation by a minor.
The Utah law was upheld by a federal judge who last month rejected a lawsuit challenging it.
Arkansas’ law, which would have required parental consent for children to create new social media accounts, was struck down by a federal judge Thursday and a lawsuit challenging the Louisiana law is pending.
No longer content simply to ask where the beef is, a growing number of consumer are going to court to find out and filing lawsuits claiming that restaurants are being deceptive in how they market their menu items.
Burger King is the latest company in the crosshairs. In August, a federal judge in Florida refused to dismiss a class-action suit that claims Burger King’s ads overstate the amount of meat in its Whopper burger and other sandwiches.
But Burger King is far from the only one. Perkins Coie, a law firm that tracks class action suits, said 214 were filed against food and beverage companies in 2022 and 101 were filed in the first six months of this year. That’s a huge increase from 2010, when just 45 were filed.
Pooja Nair, who represents food and beverage companies as a partner with the Beverly Hills, California-based law firm Ervin Cohen and Jessup, said waves of class action lawsuits started hitting federal courts a few years ago.
Some of the first were false advertising claims against snack chip makers for not completely filling the bags; most of those were dismissed, she said. Since 2019, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed asserting that consumers are being misled by “vanilla-flavored” products that don’t contain pure vanilla or vanilla beans.
More recently, a suit by a Chicago resident against Buffalo Wild Wings that the fast-food chain’s boneless chicken wings don’t consist of a deboned wing and amounts to false advertising. Another case alleges that Taco Bell’s advertising is “unfair and materially misleading,” claiming that the restaurant company overstates how much “beef and/or ingredients” are in its menu items.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys largely file the cases in the same courts in New York, California and Illinois, she said, where federal courts are less likely to dismiss them outright.
Suits against McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Wendy’s
While the case against Burger King was filed in Miami, where its parent company has its U.S. headquarters, one of the attorneys who filed it has similar cases pending in New York against McDonald’s, Taco Bell and Wendy’s. That attorney, James Kelly, didn’t respond to a message seeking comment.
Companies often settle cases before a lawsuit is filed instead of spending the time and money fighting it in court, Nair said. Earlier this summer, A&W and Keurig Dr Pepper agreed to pay $15 million to settle claims they had deceived customers with the label, “Made with aged vanilla” on cans of soda which actually used synthetic flavoring.
Others say growing consumer awareness is behind the trend. Social media can instantly make a photo of a soggy sandwich go viral, informing other potential plaintiffs, said Jordan Hudgens, the chief technology officer for Dashtrack, an Arizona-based company that develops restaurant websites.
Rising awareness of health and nutrition is also causing people to question product claims, he said.
Ben Michael, an attorney with Michael and Associates in Austin, Texas, said inflation also might be making restaurants a target right now, since some may have cut back on portion sizes to cut costs.
“Unfortunately, many businesses make these changes without consulting their marketing department or updating their menus to represent new portion sizes and ingredients,” he said. “This leaves them open to the kinds of lawsuits we’ve been seeing more of.”
How big is my burger?
In the Burger King case, plaintiffs in multiple states sued in March 2022, claiming that advertisements and photos on store menu boards show burgers that are about 35% larger, with double the meat than the burgers they purchased. The plaintiffs said they wouldn’t have bought the sandwiches if they had known the actual size.
A Burger King spokesperson said the plaintiffs’ claims are false, and that the beef patties in its ads are the same ones it serves across the U.S.
In late August, U.S. District Judge Roy Altman dismissed some of the plaintiffs’ claims. He ruled that the plaintiffs can’t argue that television or online ads constituted a “binding offer” from Burger King, because they don’t list a price or product information. But he said the plaintiffs could argue that the images on the menu boards represented a binding offer. He also didn’t dismiss claims of negligent misrepresentation.
Nair said it’s unclear how the case will be resolved. Generally, she said, cases against fast food giants have been hard to win. Unlike boxes of cereal or sodas, every sandwich is different, and some might look more like the images on menu boards than others. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in on these issues, so they’ve been decided on a court-by-court basis.
In 2020, a federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against Dunkin’. The plaintiffs said the company deceived them when it said their wraps contained Angus steak; they actually contained ground meat.
Ultimately, the Burger King case and others could cause companies to be more careful with their ads, said Jeff Galak, an associate professor of marketing at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business. But that could come at a cost; more realistic photos might lead to lower sales.
“There’s a legal line. When is it puffery and when is it deceit?” Galak said. “Companies are always trying to ride right up against that line.”
Shares of Hawaiian Electric Co.’s parent fell more than 18% by market close Friday, one day after the utility was sued by Maui County over the fires that devastated Lahaina earlier this month.
Maui County accused Hawaiian Electric of negligently failing to shut off power despite exceptionally high winds and dry conditions — saying that the destruction from the deadly Aug. 8 fires could have been avoided if the company had taken essential actions. Outrage towards Hawaiian Electric grew as witness accounts and video indicated that sparks from power lines ignited fires as utility poles snapped in the winds, which were driven by a passing hurricane.
In the weeks since the fires — which killed at least 115 people and left an unknown number of others missing — broke out, Hawaiian Electric Industries Inc.’s market capitalization has fallen from $4.1 billion to $1.1 billion.
Late Thursday, the company said it would suspend its quarterly dividend of 36 cents per share, starting in the third quarter, in order to improve its cash position.
In a Friday report, analysts at Wells Fargo said that Hawaiian Electric is “potentially under severe financial duress” and “could face a future liquidity event” — pointing to the company’s struggles to bring in external funds, recent downgrading of credit ratings from the S&P, as well as the costs of normal operating expenses and an upcoming $100 million debt maturity for the utility.
“The investigative and legal processes needed to potentially absolve the utility of the mounting wildfire-related liabilities are likely multiyear,” the analysts wrote. “As such, we remain of the opinion that a bankruptcy reorganization is still perhaps the most plausible path forward given what appears to be an inevitable liquidity crunch.”
Beyond litigation from Maui County, Hawaiian Electric is also facing several lawsuits from Lahaina residents as well as one from some of its own investors, who accused it of fraud in a federal lawsuit Thursday, alleging that it failed to disclose that its wildfire prevention and safety measures were inadequate. Hawaiian Electric serves 95% of Hawaii’s electric customers.
“Nobody likes to turn the power off — it’s inconvenient — but any utility that has significant wildfire risk, especially wind-driven wildfire risk, needs to do it and needs to have a plan in place,” Michael Wara, a wildfire expert who is director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford University, told The Associated Press last week. “In this case, the utility did not.”
A drought in the region had also left plants, including invasive grasses, dangerously dry. In Thursday’s suit, Maui County alleged that Hawaiian Electric knew that high winds “would topple power poles, knock down power lines, and ignite vegetation” — pointing the utility’s duty to properly maintain and repair equipment, as well as trim vegetation to prevent contact.
In response to Thursday’s suit, Hawaiian Electric said that it was “very disappointed that Maui County chose this litigious path while the investigation is still unfolding” — adding that the company’s “primary focus in the wake of this unimaginable tragedy has been to do everything we can to support not just the people of Maui, but also Maui County.”
Wells Fargo’s analysts on Friday also called Maui County’s lawsuit “troublesome” — writing that “Maui County’s preparation for the high wind event and response after fires broke out was less than perfect,” based on media reports.
United Airlines is paying $30 million to the family of a quadriplegic man who was left comatose following an incident as he was being wheeled off a plane.
The family of Nathaniel Foster Jr. alleged in a lawsuit that United “failed to abide by the standard of care owed to disabled passengers” after an agent “aggressively” pushed his wheelchair while helping him deplane in 2019. That caused Foster to sustain “significant” and permanent brain damage, according to the complaint.
As a result of the incident, Foster was left unable to speak or eat solid foods, and his life expectancy has fallen from 39 to 31.5 years, the suit alleged.
United settled the lawsuit on Tuesday following a one-day trial in San Francisco federal court. Of the $30 million settlement, roughly $12 million will cover legal fees, and $3 million will cover other costs, Reuters reported. The carrier did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Foster, who used a wheelchair, ventilator and tracheal tube at the time of the incident, “jerked forward and back” and slouched in his chair after it was “forcefully” pushed while he disembarked, the family’s lawyers said in a legal filing.
According to the complaint, Foster looked “fearful” and whispered “I can’t breathe” during the incident, but a gate agent “giggled” and said “we got this” to a doctor who offered to help the man. Foster then suffered a heart attack, and a doctor at the scene found he had no pulse.
Foster’s mother said she received assurances that her son would be properly assisted getting on and off the plane when she called United’s accessibility desk ahead of their trip, according to the complaint. However, only one flight attendant was initially present to help Foster disembark the plane when they arrived in Louisiana, the suit claimed. Foster typically required the assistance of four to six people to exit a plane, according to the complaint.
Lawyers for Foster’s family did not immediately respond to CBS MoneyWatch’s request for comment.
Thanks for reading CBS NEWS.
Create your free account or log in for more features.
A FedEx delivery driver who said two White men shot at and chased him in Mississippi in 2022 has now been fired from his job, he and his attorney said Monday.
“I honestly feel disrespected,” the former driver, D’Monterrio Gibson, 25, told The Associated Press shortly after he received an email from FedEx about his termination.
Meredith Miller, manager of global network communications for FedEx, confirmed Monday that “Mr. Gibson is no longer employed at FedEx,” but did not respond to other questions from AP.
A Mississippi judge on August 17 cited police errors in declaring a mistrial for the father and son charged in the attack. A detective testified about failing to give prosecutors and defense attorneys a copy of a videotaped police interview with Gibson.
“I honestly feel disrespected,” the former driver, D’Monterrio Gibson, 25, told The Associated Press shortly after he received an email from FedEx about his termination.
AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis
Carlos Moore, an attorney who has represented Gibson in a civil lawsuit, provided AP with a copy of an email Gibson received from FedEx on Monday. It said Gibson’s employment was terminated July 26, and the company attempted to deliver a letter and documents to him about the termination July 31.
FedEx fired Gibson because he did not accept a part-time, non-courier job that the company offered in mid-July, Moore said, adding that he did not know whether the company gave Gibson a deadline to accept.
“They can’t tell me when I should be ready to come back,” Gibson said.
Worker’s comp, therapy, trouble sleeping
Gibson said he has been on worker’s compensation leave, at about one-third of his pay, since shortly after he reported the attack to police in Brookhaven, Mississippi, on the night it allegedly happened, Jan. 24, 2022.
Gibson was not injured in the shooting or chase, but said Monday that he has been in therapy to deal with anxiety because of it. He said he still has trouble sleeping.
Brandon Case and his father, Gregory Case, are charged with attempted first-degree murder, conspiracy and shooting into the vehicle driven by Gibson. Prosecutors said they intend to schedule a new trial for the two men, who remain out on bond. A court official said the judge’s docket is full through December.
Moore said Gibson had done nothing wrong before two White men tried to stop him, with one of the men holding a gun.
“He was simply Black while working,” Moore said during a news conference in 2022. Gibson had said he was told by his superiors to run the same route the day after the chase, CBS affiliate WJTV reported.
“The following day, we had to go file a police report, and as soon as I was done filing a police report, they put me back on the same route. I did that for like a day or two until I started having real bad anxiety attacks, and I just couldn’t do it anymore. I asked them for some time off, which I do have, but it’s unpaid,” said Gibson at the time.
In a statement earlier this year, FedEx said: “FedEx takes situations of this nature very seriously, and we are shocked by this criminal act against our team member. … The safety of our team members is our top priority, and we remain focused on his wellbeing. We will continue to support Mr. Gibson as we cooperate with investigating authorities.”
Although nobody was injured, the alleged incident has sparked social media complaints of racism in Brookhaven, about 55 miles south of the state capital, Jackson.
Brandon Case (right) and his father, Gregory Case (center), are charged with attempted first-degree murder, conspiracy and shooting into the vehicle driven by Gibson.
Hunter Cloud/ The Daily Leader via AP
Gibson reported that the encounter happened as he was making FedEx deliveries in a van with the Hertz logo on three sides. After he dropped off a package at a home on a dead-end public road, Gregory Case, then 58, used a pickup truck to try to block the van from leaving, and his son Brandon Case, 35 at the time, came outside with a gun, District Attorney Dee Bates told jurors last week.
As Gibson drove the van around the pickup truck, shots were fired, with three rounds hitting the delivery van and some of the packages inside, Bates said.
Gregory Case saw a rental van with a Florida license plate outside his mother-in-law’s unoccupied home after dark, defense attorney Terrell Stubbs told jurors. The elder Case was just going to ask the van driver what was going on, but the driver did not stop, Stubbs said.
Grand Jury: Brookhaven Police “complacent”
On August 10, a federal judge dismissed Gibson’s federal lawsuit seeking $5 million from FedEx, writing that the lawsuit failed to prove the company discriminated against him because of his race. That litigation also named the city of Brookhaven, the police chief and the Cases. Moore said he plans to file a new civil suit in state court, seeking $10 million.
A grand jury issued a report last month saying that Brookhaven Police Department officers “poorly investigate their cases.” The grand jury, made up of local residents, considered more than 60 criminal cases, and wrote that the department is “complacent,” “does not complete investigations in a timely manner,” shows a “lack of professionalism” and “has a habit of witness blaming.”
The primary electric services company for Hawaii is facing at least three lawsuits as of Tuesday, Axios reported.
Hawaiian Electric, which provides electricity for 95% of the island chain’s population, did not shut off power as strong winds from the passing Hurricane Dora overtook Maui. Fires, which have killed more than 100 people, began on Aug. 8, but the exact cause is unknown.
As the search for the cause of the fire continues, Hawaiian Electric has been hit with multiple lawsuits alleging that the company bears responsibility for the deadliest wildfire in the U.S. in more than a century.
Another lawsuit filed the same day, which is also seeking a trial by jury and a class-action status, alleges that Maui Electric and Hawaiian Electric “left their power lines energized” and that “these power lines foreseeably ignited the fastmoving, deadly, and destructive Lahaina Fire, which destroyed homes, businesses, churches, schools, and historic cultural sites.”
“The fire killed scores of people and ruined hundreds — if not thousands — of lives,” added the lawsuit, filed by two law firms in Honolulu and and one in California.
“The island of Maui is sacred land to the people who live there, their families, and their ancestors,” said managing partner Gerald Singleton in a news release. “Our goal is higher than filing a lawsuit; we want to make sure these people have their homes, their land, and their ancestry protected. For our attorneys, justice is helping each survivor rebuild their lives after this terrible tragedy. This is not a class action. We represent each client individually, as each of our clients’ damages are unique.”
Lawsuits against utility companies following fires are not unheard of. Pacific Gas and Electric in Northern California, which has been blamed for starting more than 30 fires since 2017, has been at the forefront of several such suits.
Earlier this year, a judge ruled that PG&E would face a trial by jury for 11 felony and misdemeanor charges related to the Zogg Fire in California, which left four people dead.
Southern California Edison has faced multiple lawsuits over California wildfires and in July agreed to pay $22 million, along with two other companies, for a massive 2016 fire that began when a tree fell on power and communication lines, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Since the Maui wildfires, Hawaiian Electric Industries’ stock has dropped 30%, CNN reported Tuesday. S&P Global downgraded the company’s credit rating to BB-.
“The wildfires destroyed a significant segment of HEI’s customer base that will take many years to restore, and as such, we expect a long-term weakening in the company’s profitability measures,” S&P told CNN.
Hawaiian Electric Vice President Jim Kelly told CNN that the company’s “immediate focus is on supporting emergency response efforts on Maui and restoring power for our customers and communities as quickly as possible.”
“At this early stage, the cause of the fire has not been determined and we will work with the state and county as they conduct their review,” he said.
Michael Oher, the former NFL offensive lineman and inspiration for the 2009 box office success “The Blind Side,” told a Tennessee judge on Monday that contrary to the film version of his life he was never adopted by the Tuohy family, and alleged that the family earned millions from the story.
Oher, now 37, has petitioned a Shelby County judge to revoke the conservatorship from the Tuohys, arguing that he’s old enough to handle his own business affairs. The Tuohys “have falsely and publicly represented themselves as the adoptive parents of Michael,” the petition claims.
In “The Blind Side,” Lee Anne Tuohy was portrayed by Sandra Bullock, while Sean Tuohy was played by Tim McGraw.
“Since at least August of 2004, Conservators have allowed Michael, specifically, and the public, generally, to believe that Conversators adopted Michael and have used that untruth to gain financial advantages for themselves and the foundations which they own or which they exercise control,” the petition alleges.
Michael Oher claims that Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy (above) convinced him to sign conservatorship documents when he was by telling him it was “for all intents and purposes, an adoption.”
AP Photo/Gerald Herbert
Legally blind-sided?
Oher claimed in court documents that Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy convinced him to sign conservatorship documents in 2004 by falsely telling him that the legal action was “for all intents and purposes, an adoption.” Court documents state that Oher signed the documents at 18 after being a foster child for years.
The conservatorship has allowed the Tuhoys to financially benefit from Oher’s image and likeness, he alleges in the petition, and “reap millions of dollars” off of the Oscar-nominated movie about Oher, while he “received nothing.”
Steve Farese, a lawyer for the Tuohys, told the Associated Press that they will file an answer to the allegations in court but he declined to comment further. He was among three attorneys who served on behalf of the Tuohys on Monday.
Oher was the 23rd overall pick in the 2009 draft out of the University of Mississippi. He played five seasons for the Baltimore Ravens then another eight NFL seasons, including 2014, when he started 11 games for the Tennessee Titans. Oher finished his career after two years with the Carolina Panthers.
Michael Oher was the 23rd overall pick in the 2009 draft out of the University of Mississippi. He played five seasons for the Baltimore Ravens then another eight NFL seasons.
AP Photo/Nick Wass
Oher’s 14-page petition details his entering the foster care system at 11. During high school, Oher was homeless but lived with friends and classmates including Collins and Sean Tuohy — the sons of Sean and Leigh Anne.
“Almost immediately after Michael moved in, the Tuohys presented him with what he understood to be legal papers that were a necessary step in the adoption process,” the petition alleges. “Michael trusted the Tuohys and signed where they told him to sign.”
The petition also claims that Oher didn’t truly know what he had signed.
“Michael was falsely advised by the Tuohys that because he was over the age of eighteen, that the legal action to adopt Michael would have to be called ‘conservatorship’ but it was, for all intents and purposes, an adoption,” the petition claims.
Khristopher J. Brooks is a reporter for CBS MoneyWatch covering business, consumer and financial stories that range from economic inequality and housing issues to bankruptcies and the business of sports.
A Texas woman was awarded a $1.2 billion settlement after a Houston-area jury ruled she was the victim of revenge porn.
The woman, who went by her initials D.L. in court documents, filed a harassment lawsuit in April 2022 in Harris County against her former boyfriend Marques Jamal Jackson. According to the suit, Jackson posted intimate images of his ex-girlfriend, obtained while they were dating, onto social media platforms and adult websites “with the intent to embarrass, harass, torment, humiliate, and publicly shame” her.
The lawsuit also accuses Jackson of tapping into the plaintiff’s mother’s home security system to spy on D.L. after the two broke up, as well as sending links to her friends and family to sites where intimate images of her had been uploaded.
A symbolic win
The billion-dollar settlement offers a symbolic win for victims of “imaged-based sexual abuse,” known as “revenge porn,” which is used to inflict “a combination of psychological abuse, domestic violence and sexual abuse,” the plaintiff’s attorney, Bradford J. Gilde of Gilde Law Firm, said in a statement.
“While a judgment in this case is unlikely to be recovered, the compensatory verdict gives D.L. back her good name,” Gilde said. “The punitive verdict also is the jury’s plea to raise awareness of this tech-fueled national epidemic.”
D.L. joins a growing list of revenge porn cases where victims have been awarded large sums. In 2021, a Maryland woman won $500,000 from a Michigan man who posted nude photographs of her online, the Detroit Free Press reported. A California woman was awarded $6.45 million after her ex-boyfriend shared nude pictures and videos of her online.
Nearly all 50 states — including Texas — have passed laws banning revenge porn with the exception of Massachusetts and South Carolina.
“Despicable activity”
Jackson and D.L. began dating in 2016 and, soon after starting their relationship, the pair moved to Chicago where Jackson had been offered a job, court documents state. During their relationship, D.L. was comfortable sharing intimate images of herself with Jackson.
However, soon after the pair broke up in October 2021 and D.L. moved back to Texas, Jackson began posting D.L.’s private images online between, the lawsuit claims. Court documents show that one of Jackson’s final messages to D.L. read, “You will spend the rest of your life trying and failing to wipe yourself off the internet. Everyone you ever meet will hear the story and go looking.”
Jackson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
“We will forever admire D.L.’s courage in fighting back,” Gilde said. “We hope the staggering amount of this verdict sends a message of deterrence and prevents others from this engaging in this despicable activity,” he added.
Khristopher J. Brooks is a reporter for CBS MoneyWatch covering business, consumer and financial stories that range from economic inequality and housing issues to bankruptcies and the business of sports.
Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that would shield members of the Sackler family who own the company from civil lawsuits over the toll of opioids.
The justices agreed to a request from the Biden administration to put the brakes on an agreement reached last year with state and local governments. In addition, the high court will hear arguments before the end of the year over whether the settlement can proceed.
The deal would allow the company to emerge from bankruptcy as a different entity, with its profits used to fight the opioid epidemic. Members of the Sackler family would contribute up to $6 billion.
But a key component of the agreement would shield family members, who are not seeking bankruptcy protection as individuals, from lawsuits.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, represented by the Justice Department, opposes releasing the Sackler family from legal liability.
The justices directed the parties to address whether bankruptcy law authorizes a blanket shield from lawsuits filed by all opioid victims. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed the reorganization plan to proceed.
In a filing with the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said that if the lower court’s decision is allowed to stand, it would provide a “roadmap for wealthy corporations and individuals to misuse the bankruptcy system to avoid mass tort liability.”
“That is not what Congress enacted the Bankruptcy Code to accomplish,” she told the justices. “And if such abuses are permitted, the gamesmanship that is sure to follow will only amplify the harms to victims by redistributing bargaining power to tortfeasors.”
Lawyers for Purdue and other parties to the agreement had urged the justices to stay out of the case. “This is a baseless stay application that, if granted, would harm victims and needlessly delay the distribution of billions of dollars to abate the opioid crisis,” Purdue’s lawyers wrote.
Ed Neiger, a lawyer representing individual victims of the opioid crisis who would be in line for a piece of the settlement, said it was a disappointment that they would have to wait longer for any compensation but also praised the court for agreeing to hear the case so soon. “They clearly see the urgency of the matter,” he said.
Another group of mostly parents of people who died from opioid overdoses has called for the settlement not to be accepted.
Opioids have been linked to more than 70,000 fatal overdoses annually in the U.S. in recent years. Most of those are from fentanyl and other synthetic drugs. But the crisis widened in the early 2000s as OxyContin and other powerful prescription painkillers became prevalent.
After three former dancers shared their lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the performer, her production company Big Grrrls Big Tour, Inc., and her dance captain, Shirlene Quigley, alleging a number of employment violations from assault to harassment, Lizzo posted a Notes App statement on Instagram.
“These last few days have been gut-wrenchingly difficult and overwhelmingly disappointing,” the Grammy-winning performer wrote. “My work ethic, morals, and respectfulness have been questioned. My character has been criticized. Usually I chose not to respond to false allegations but these are as unbelievable as they sound and too outrageous to not be addressed.”
“The sensationalized stories are coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional.” According to the suit, Arianna Davis was fired for filming a meeting in which Lizzo provided notes to the dancers, which Davis says she wanted to review later. Lizzo added in her statement that she doesn’t want to be “looked at as a victim, but also know that I am not the villain that people and the media have portrayed me to be these last few days. I am very open with my sexuality and expressing myself but I can not accept or allow people to use that openness to make me out to be something I am not.”
Instagram content
This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.
She specifically addressed the allegation that one of the dancers, Davis, had been singled out for gaining weight and eventually fired—a claim that possibly hit fans of Lizzo hardest. Davis saw the performer’s intent to question her “commitment” to the job as a “thinly veiled” allusion to her weight gain. The “Good As Hell” singer has positioned herself as a champion for body positivity.
“There is nothing I take more seriously than the respect we deserve as women in the world. I know what it feels like to be body shamed on a daily basis and would absolutely never criticize or terminate an employee because of their weight,” she wrote.
“I’m hurt but I will not let the good work I’ve done in the world be overshadowed by this. I want to thank everyone who has reached out in support to lift me up during this difficult time.”
The extent of the dancers Davis, Crystal Williams, and Noelle Rodriguez’s claims include sexual, racial, and religious harassment, assault, false imprisonment, and disability discrimination on the job, among other things. Some, but not all of these claims, are against Lizzo herself. The suit details one night in Amsterdam’s Red Light District in February 2023, claiming that Lizzo pressured Davis into touching a nude performer.
Williams and Davis are claiming wrongful termination, while Rodriguez quit to protest their firing.
In response to Lizzo’s lengthy response, Ron Zambrano, the attorney representing the dancers, said that Lizzo has “failed her own brand and has let down her fans,” adding that her “dismissive comments and utter lack of empathy are quite telling about her character and only serve to minimize the trauma she has caused the plaintiffs and other employees who have now come forward sharing their own negative experiences.”
According to TMZ, Lizzo has retained Marty Singer, who has represented more big names in Hollywood than likely any other entertainment lawyer. He is already hard at work.
Lizzo has responded to allegations that she contributed to a hostile work environment fraught with sexual harassment, days after three former dancers for the singer filed a lawsuit detailing their claims. In an Instagram post on Thursday, Lizzo called the women’s claims “sensationalized stories.”
Three former dancers – Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez – filed a complaint against Lizzo’s company, Big Grrrl Big Touring, as well as the dance team captain Shirlene Quigley on Tuesday, saying, among other things, that Lizzo allegedly pressured dancers to engage with nude performers in Amsterdam earlier this year. They also said that dancers were put on “more stringent” rules than other people who were part of the tour, and had been falsely accused of drinking before shows.
Davis told CBS News on Wednesday that at one point, when on tour in Amsterdam, the performers had gone to a show in the red light district, where she says she and Rodriguez were pressured to interact with a nude performer, despite saying “no.”
Eventually, she said she did it, out of fear of losing her job and “being ostracized.”
“It’s an understanding in the camp, if you don’t participate, try to get in with Lizzo, you will not be booked on as many jobs,” she said. “She won’t like you as much. You will be ostracized later.”
On Thursday, Lizzo responded, saying the aftermath of the allegations has been “gut wrenchingly difficult and overwhelmingly disappointing.”
“Usually I choose not to respond to false allegations but these are as unbelievable as they sound and too outrageous to not be addressed,” she said. “These sensationalized stories are coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional.”
Lizzo, whose real name is Melissa Jefferson, went on to say that she takes her “music and my performances seriously.”
“With passion comes hard work and high standards. Sometimes I have to make hard decisions but it’s never my intention to make anyone feel uncomfortable or like they aren’t valued as an important part of the team,” she said. “I am not here to be looked at as a victim, but I also know that I am not the villain that people and the media have portrayed me to be these last few days.”
Lizzo, who is widely known for carrying a body-positive persona, said she’s “very open with my sexuality and expressing myself” – but that she won’t let that be used to “make me out to be something I am not.”
Davis had claimed that at one point during the tour, Lizzo had expressed to her that she was “worried” about her because she had gained weight.
“I believe she was trying to allude to the fact that I was gaining weight in a way that she wouldn’t get canceled, if that makes sense,” Davis said. “It was not a like, ‘you’re fat, you’re fired.’ It was never ‘you’re gaining too much weight,’ it was never blatant, it was very nuanced.”
Lizzo alluded to this in her statement on Thursday, saying, “There is nothing I take more seriously than the respect we deserve as women in the world.”
“I know what it feels like to be body shamed on a daily basis and would absolutely never criticize or terminate an employee because of their weight,” she said. “…I’m hurt but I will not let the good work I’ve done in the world be overshadowed by this.”
The makers of Ozempic and Mounjaro, drugs used for both weight loss and diabetes management, are facing a lawsuit claiming the medications can cause “stomach paralysis.” Janet Shamlian reports.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Social media star Jimmy “MrBeast” Donaldson is suing a Florida ghost kitchen company, alleging that the subpar quality of the burgers the business created in partnering with the YouTuber during the pandemic is hurting his reputation.
Donaldson launched MrBeast Burger in September of 2020 with the help of Virtual Dining Concepts, court documents state. Virtual Dining, drawing on the enormous popularity of Donaldson’s YouTube channel, created 1,000 ghost kitchen locations in 2021 to quickly ramp up sales, according to the lawsuit.
“Unfortunately, however, because Virtual Dining Concepts was more focused on rapidly expanding the business as a way to pitch the virtual restaurant model to other celebrities for its own benefit, it was not focused on controlling the quality of the MrBeast Burger customer experience and products,” the complaint states.
Donaldson, a North Carolina native who is also known for his philanthropy, has the third-most watched channel on YouTube, with more than 172 million subscribers. Time magazine named Donaldson one of the world’s 100 most influential people in 2023.
YouTube star Jimmy “MrBeast” Donaldson poses with fans at the launch of the first physical MrBeast Burger Restaurant on September 4, 2022, in East Rutherford, New Jersey.
Dave Kotinsky
The MrBeast Burger line, offered through food delivery apps like DoorDash, Grubhub or Uber Eats as well a dine-in restaurant in Rutherford, New Jersey, features burgers, chicken sandwiches, fries and chocolate chip cookies. According to the lawsuit, some customers have complained about how “disgusting, revolting and inedible” the burger has become since its launch. One customer described it as “likely the worst burger I have ever had,” the suit states.
Donaldson is suing Virtual Dining for breach of contract, among other claims. Donaldson’s suit, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, also alleges that he hasn’t earned any money from the partnership in part because Virtual Dining trademarked the phrase “Mr. Beast” without his knowledge.
Virtual Dining dismisses the allegations. Donaldson’s lawsuit “is riddled with false statements and inaccuracies, a lawyer for the company said in a statement to CBS MoneyWatch, claiming that the dispute stems from a failed contract negotiation between Donaldson and Virtual Dining,
“Mr. Donaldson recently attempted to negotiate a new deal to serve his own monetary interests,” said Richard Edlin of Greenberg Traurig. “When [Virtual Dining Concepts] refused to accede to his bullying tactics to give up more of the brand to him, he filed this ill-advised and meritless lawsuit seeking to undermine the Mr. Beast Burger brand and terminate his existing contractual obligations without cause.”
“The alleged basis for Mr. Donaldson’s complaint is that his reputation has been ‘materially and irreparably’ tarnished by the Mr. Beast Burger brand,” Edlin added. “In reality, Mr. Donaldson’s notoriety has grown exponentially over the life of the Mr. Beast Burger brand.”
Khristopher J. Brooks is a reporter for CBS MoneyWatch covering business, consumer and financial stories that range from economic inequality and housing issues to bankruptcies and the business of sports.
Three former dancers for singer Lizzo have filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the Grammy award-winning musician, claiming they were subjected to a severely toxic work environment that included “debauchery” and racially biased taunts of being “lazy” and “snarky.”
The singer’s company, Big Grrrl Big Touring, and dance team captain, Shirlene Quigley, were both named as defendants in the suit filed Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. In their complaint, dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez also accuse Lizzo of disability discrimination, assault and false imprisonment.
“The stunning nature of how Lizzo and her management team treated their performers seems to go against everything Lizzo stands for publicly, while privately she weight-shames her dancers and demeans them in ways that are not only illegal but absolutely demoralizing,” the dancers’ lawyer, Ron Zambrano, said in a statement.
Media representatives for Lizzo didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
Davis, Williams and Rodriguez, who are all people of color, joined Lizzo’s dance team in 2021, according to the suit. During an international tour in Amsterdam earlier this year, Lizzo allegedly pressured the dancers into engaging with nude performers in the city’s red light district, the suit states.
In their complaint, the dancers describe their former work environment as “overtly sexual” and hostile, claiming that allegedly abusive behavior by the singer contributed to their “emotional distress.”
Davis and Williams were fired and Rodriguez resigned from Lizzo’s dance team, Zambrano said.
Khristopher J. Brooks is a reporter for CBS MoneyWatch covering business, consumer and financial stories that range from economic inequality and housing issues to bankruptcies and the business of sports.
Thanks for reading CBS NEWS.
Create your free account or log in for more features.
Washington — Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who served as an outside lawyer to former President Donald Trump, acknowledged Wednesday that he made “false” statements when he claimed two Georgia election workers engaged in voter fraud during the 2020 election. Giuliani, who’s being sued by the now former election workers for defamation, still argued he was engaging in constitutionally protected speech when he made the allegations.
Giuliani’s concession came in a two-page stipulation he submitted to the federal District Court in Washington, D.C., as part of the lawsuit brought by Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, who are mother and daughter. In the filing, the former mayor admitted that for the purposes of the litigation, “to the extent the statements were statements of fact and otherwise actionable, such actionable factual statements were false.”
Giuliani also admitted that “he does not dispute for purposes of this litigation, that the statements carry meaning that is defamatory per se,” and no longer contests the “factual elements of liability” raised by Freeman and Moss. But he noted that the declaration has no effect on his argument that he made constitutionally protected statements or opinions, or that his conduct caused the pair any damage.
Giuliani’s concessions come as he faces the prospect of sanctions from the court regarding his discovery obligations in the dispute. Freeman and Moss asked U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who is presiding over the case, earlier this month to impose the sanctions, including awarding certain attorneys’ fees and costs, on Giuliani for failing to preserve electronic evidence from his email, messaging and social media accounts and electronic devices.
“Indeed, sanctions exist to remedy the precise situation here — a sophisticated party’s abuse of judicial process designed to avoid accountability, at enormous expense to the parties and this Court,” the pair’s lawyers wrote. “Defendant Giuliani should know better. His conduct warrants severe sanctions.”
Rudy Giuliani speaks to members of the media while leaving federal court in Washington, D.C., May 19, 2023.
Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Giuliani, though, asked to deny the request for sanctions, and noted in a separate filing that he “stipulates by concession any pertinent facts for which discovery from him would be needed.”
“Out of abundance of caution, and to avoid any potential controversy, Giuliani has agreed to stipulate to the factual aspects of liability as to plaintiffs claims, except damages, as such discovery or information would be solely in possession of the plaintiffs,” Joseph Sibley IV, Giuliani’s lawyer, told the court. “While Giuliani does not admit to Plaintiffs’ allegations, he — for purposes of this litigation only — does not contest the factual allegations.”
The signed declaration noted that Giuliani “is desirous to avoid unnecessary expenses in litigating what he believes to be unnecessary disputes.”
Ted Goodman, a political adviser to Giuliani, said in response to the filing that it was made “in order to move on to the portion of the case that will permit a motion to dismiss.”
“This is a legal issue, not a factual issue. Those out to smear the mayor are ignoring the fact that this stipulation is designed to get to the legal issues of the case,” he said in a statement.
Michael Gottlieb, a lawyer for Freeman and Moss, said Giuliani’s acknowledgements are a “major milestone in this fight for justice,” though certain issues, including damages, still must be decided by the court.
“Giuliani’s stipulation concedes what we have always known to be true — Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss honorably performed their civic duties in the 2020 presidential election in full compliance with the law; and the allegations of election fraud he and former-President Trump made against them have been false since day one,” Gottlieb said in a statement.
Freeman and Moss worked as election workers in Fulton County, Georgia, during the 2020 election. Freeman was a temporary employee tasked with verifying signatures on absentee ballots and preparing them for counting and processing, while Moss, who had worked for the Fulton County elections department since 2012, worked on the county’s absentee ballot operation.
The two were thrust into the public eye after they were shown in security camera footage from the State Farm Arena in Atlanta processing ballots. The Trump campaign and Giuliani shared an excerpt from the footage, and falsely claimed it showed Freeman and Moss engaging in a fake ballot scheme.
Though Georgia election officials refuted the inaccurate claims peddled by Trump’s allies, Moss and Freeman were subjected to violent and racist threats and harassment. The two women appeared before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol about how their lives were upended by the baseless theories spread about them.
Freeman and Moss filed their lawsuit against Giuliani in December 2021, alleging he made defamatory statements about them, which he repeated long after the 2020 election had been decided, and inflicted severe emotional distress on them.
Giuliani sought to dismiss the lawsuit, but Howell denied his request, writing that Giuliani “propagated and pushed” a false narrative that the electron was stolen.
A Black man who says he was elected mayor of a rural Alabama town but has been kept from taking office by White leaders of the town has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Patrick Braxton, 57, is one of several plaintiffs named in Braxton et al v. Stokes et al. The other plaintiffs — James Ballard, Barbara Patrick, Janice Quarles and Wanda Scott — are people that Braxton hoped to name to the city council of Newburn after he was elected to office in 2020. However, Braxton said that the “minority White residents of (Newburn), long accustomed to exercising total control over the government, refused to accept this outcome.” Haywood Stokes III, the acting mayor of Newburn, instead allegedly worked with acting town council members to hold a special election where he was re-appointed to the mayoral seat and keeping Braxton from taking office and carrying out mayoral duties.
Braxton said in the lawsuit, which CBS News reviewed, that Newbern had not held an election “for decades.” Instead, “the office of mayor was ‘inherited’ by a hand-picked successor,” and that mayor then chose town council members, again without an election. All prior mayors have been White residents, the lawsuit said, even though about 85% of Newbern’s population is Black. Only one Black person has ever served on the town council.
Braxton, a volunteer firefighter and emergency responder, decided to run for mayor in 2020 because he “had concerns that the Town Council and Mayor were not responding to the needs of the majority Black community,” particularly amid the COVID-19 pandemic. When he approached Stokes for information about running for mayor, Stokes allegedly gave Braxton “wrong information about how to qualify” for the election, and did not provide public notice to residents about the election. Despite these hurdles, Braxton allegedly gave then-city clerk Lynn Williams his statement of candidacy and qualifying money order.
Patrick Braxton.
Alabama Love
Braxton was allegedly the only person who qualified for the position of mayor, according to the lawsuit. Stokes “did not bother to qualify as a candidate,” the lawsuit said, even though he knew Braxton was planning to run. No candidates qualified for town council positions, either.
Braxton was elected mayor by default, making him the first Black mayor of Newbern in the 165 years since the town was founded.
Braxton was informed by county probate Judge Arthur Crawford that because no one had qualified or been elected to town council positions, he could appoint people to the positions, according to the lawsuit. This was in line with previous mayoral administrations, who also appointed council members. Braxton asked both Black and White residents to serve, but no White residents agreed to join his council, according to the lawsuit.
Meanwhile, in August 2020, just weeks after his election, Stokes and his council members Gary Broussard, Jesse Donald Leverett, Voncille Brown Thomas and Willie Richard Tucker allegedly “met in secret to adopt a ‘special’ election ordinance.” Notice of the meeting was not published, and the group set a special election for Oct. 6, 2020.
No notice of that election was ever published, according to the lawsuit. Because the election was not publicized, only Stokes and his council members qualified. They then “effectively reappointed themselves” to their positions, Braxton alleged, and “unlawfully assumed their new terms” and were sworn in in November, even as Braxton assembled his own town council.
“When confronted with the first duly-elected Black mayor and majority Black Town Council, all defendants undertook racially motivated actions to prevent the first Black mayor from exercising the duties of this position and the first majority Black Town Council from exercising legislative power,” the lawsuit said.
Stokes and his council filed their oaths of office with the probate judge, according to the lawsuit. Braxton was allegedly not informed of these filings.
Braxton’s representatives did not respond to requests for comment from CBS News. An attorney representing Stokes and his council members declined to comment, but said that his team had recently filed a motion to dismiss the federal lawsuit, which has been filed in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama.
In a response to Braxton’s lawsuit, reviewed by CBS News, Stokes and his council “admit that Plaintiff Patrick Braxton is Black and is the former Mayor of the Town of Newbern,” and denied many of the allegations. The defendants did admit that Braxton was the only person to qualify for mayor, and that no other candidates qualified for mayor or council membership. They admitted that a special election was held to put themselves in town council positions, and “admit that Defendant Stokes became Mayor of the Town of Newbern after Plaintiff Braxton lost the position by operation of law.”
It’s not clear by what operation of law Braxton would have lost the position.
Allegations of conspiracy
In December of 2020, the defendants allegedly had the locks changed at Town Hall. Braxton was not able to access the building until Jan. 2021, when he found that “someone had removed official Town documents from the building.” He then changed the locks to maintain access. Stokes and his council allegedly changed the locks for a third time, and according to the lawsuit, Braxton and his council have not had “uninterrupted access” to the building since April 2021. This meant that in November 2022, he could not help set up voting machines for Newbern’s most recent election.
Braxton was also unable to access town financial information, which is maintained by the People’s Bank of Greensboro. The bank is named in the lawsuit as a defendant, and a lawyer representing the bank did not respond to requests for comment from CBS News. He has also not been able to access the town’s P.O. box since Lynn Theibe, named as a defendant in the case, was appointed to the postmaster position in late 2021.
A representative for Theibe did not respond to requests for comment from CBS News. In his lawsuit, Braxton alleged that Theibe “is acting in concert and/or at the request” of Stokes and his council.
Other town documents have been moved, allegedly to prevent Braxton from accessing them, the lawsuit said. The city clerk, a relative of Stokes’, has allegedly been told not to communicate with Braxton or provide him with any town documents. Braxton’s lawsuit said that this and the other actions amounted to conspiracy to keep him from acting as mayor.
Stokes and his council have also not held any public meetings at Town Hall since 2020, according to the lawsuit, instead holding meetings at private residences.
The defendants denied many of these allegations in their response, and said that “at all times relevant to this lawsuit, they were acting under the color of law.”
Braxton has asked that the defendants be enjoined from interfering with his duties as mayor, that he immediately be granted access to the necessary accounts, documents and property, and that the defendants be enjoined from conducting business on behalf of the town.
A South Florida jury awarded $800,000 in damages to a little girl who was severely burned when a hot Chicken McNugget fell on her leg as her mother pulled away from the drive-thru of a McDonald’s restaurant.
Lawyers for the family of Olivia Caraballo, who was 4 when she was burned in 2019, were seeking $15 million in damages. Jurors reached their verdict after deliberating for less than two hours on Wednesday, the South Florida SunSentinel reported.
The jury’s verdict form allotted $400,000 in damages for the past four years, and another $400,000 for the future from the McDonald’s USA and its franchise operator, Upchurch Foods. A separate jury decided in May that the company and franchise owner were liable for the injury, which occurred outside a McDonald’s in Tamarac, near Fort Lauderdale.
“I’m actually just happy that they listened to Olivia’s voice and the jury was able to decide a fair judgment,” Olivia’s mother, Philana Holmes, told reporters outside the courtroom. “I’m happy with that. I honestly had no expectations, so this is more than fair for me.”
Philana Holmes testifies at the Broward County Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on July 18, 2023. Holmes and Humberto Caraballo Estevez, sued McDonald’s after their then 4-year-old daughter, Olivia Caraballo, got a second-degree burn from a hot chicken nugget.
Amy Beth Bennett/South Florida Sun-Sentinel via AP
She testified on Tuesday that Olivia, now 8, calls the scar on her inner thigh her “nugget” and is fixated on having it removed, the newspaper reported.
Lawyers for McDonald’s argued that the child’s discomfort ended when the wound healed, which they said took about three weeks. They contended that the girl’s mother is the one who has the problem with the scar, and told jurors that $156,000 should cover damages, both past and future.
“She’s still going to McDonalds, she still asks to go to McDonald’s, she’s still driving through the drive-thru with her mom, getting chicken nuggets,” defense attorney Jennifer Miller said in her closing argument Wednesday. “She’s not bothered by the injury. This is all the mom.”
Defense attorneys declined to speak after the verdict.
On May, UpChurch Foods said the restaurant followed protocols when cooking and serving the Happy Meal.
“Our sympathies go out to this family for what occurred in this unfortunate incident, as we hold customer safety as one of our highest priorities. That’s why our restaurant follows strict rules in accordance with food safety best practices when it comes to cooking and serving our menu items, including Chicken McNuggets,” UpChurch Foods said in a statement.
Holmes testified she had purchased Happy Meals for her son and daughter, who was sitting in the back seat, and was driving away when the nugget fell on the child’s leg. She said the girl screamed in pain, and when she pulled over in a parking lot, she realized the nugget was lodged between Oliva’s thigh and the seat belt.
The mother testified that at no point did McDonald’s warn her the food might be unusually hot. The company testified they follow food safety rules, which require McNuggets to be hot enough to avoid salmonella poisoning, and that what happens with the food once it leaves the drive-thru window is beyond their control.
While both sides agreed during the trial in May that the nugget caused the burns, the family’s lawyers argued the temperature was above 200 degrees (93 Celsius), while the defense said it was no more than 160 degrees (71 Celsius).
Photos the mother took of the burn were shown and sound clips of the child’s screams were played in court.
“Our customers should continue to rely on McDonald’s to follow policies and procedures for serving Chicken McNuggets safely,” McDonald’s said in a statement in May.
The case may stoke memories of the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit of the 1990s, which became an urban legend of sorts about seemingly frivolous lawsuits, even though a jury and judge had found it anything but.
A New Mexico jury awarded Stella Liebeck, 81, $2.7 million in punitive damages after she was scalded in 1992 by hot coffee from McDonald’s that spilled onto her lap, burning her legs, groin and buttocks, as she tried to steady the cup with her legs while prying the lid off to add cream outside a drive-thru. She suffered third-degree burns and spent more than a week in the hospital.
She had initially asked McDonald’s for $20,000 to cover hospital expenses, but the company went to trial. A judge later reduced the $2.7 million award to $480,000, which he said was appropriate for the “willful, wanton, reckless” and “callous” behavior by McDonald’s.
More recently, in 2018, a lawsuit alleged a teenager was badly burned after being served hot water at an “unreasonably dangerous temperature” at a McDonald’s restaurant in Oregon.
A separate legal case had a woman filing suit against Dunkin’ Donuts in New Jersey after falling in a parking lot and spilling hot coffee and burning herself. She reportedly settled with the chain for $522,000 in 2015.
Tesla’s directors have agreed to return more than $700 million to the company after fielding accusations they grossly overpaid themselves, marking one of the largest corporate settlements in history, Reuters reported.
The settlement, which was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court on Monday, shows the board members have made a deal to give back $735 million to the electric vehicle company, including $3.1 million in stock options, according to the news service. The directors have also agreed to enact corporate-governance changes to how board members’ compensation issues are assessed, Bloomberg Law reported.
The agreement concludes a lawsuit filed in 2020 alleging Tesla’s directors “breached their fiduciary duties by awarding themselves excessive and unfair compensation,” a filing shows. The directors, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Oracle Corp. co-founder Larry Ellison and Musk’s brother, Kimbal Musk, awarded themselves roughly $11 million worth of stock options from 2017 to 2020, Reuters reported.
The directors defended their actions during the lawsuit, but ultimately chose to settle to “eliminate the uncertainty, risk, burden, and expense of further litigation,” according to a July 14 filing cited by Bloomberg Law.
Delaware Chancery Court Chief Judge Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick must approve the directors’ deal before the settlement is finalized.
A separate lawsuit challenging Tesla co-founder Elon Musk’s $56 billion compensation package is also underway. In the complaint, shareholders alleged that conflicts of interest and improper disclosures involving performance goals influenced Musk’s pay package, one of the largest in U.S. corporate history.
Thanks for reading CBS NEWS.
Create your free account or log in for more features.
