ReportWire

Tag: Lawsuit

  • Comedians Eric André and Clayton English sue over drug search program at Atlanta airport:

    Comedians Eric André and Clayton English sue over drug search program at Atlanta airport:

    [ad_1]

    Comedians Eric André and Clayton English are challenging a police program at the Atlanta airport they say violates the constitutional rights of airline passengers, particularly Black passengers, through racial profiling and coercive searches just as they are about to board their flights.

    Lawyers for the two men filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in Atlanta alleging that they were racially profiled and illegally stopped by Clayton County police at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

    The two men, well known comedians and actors, say officers singled them out during separate stops roughly six months apart because they are Black and grilled them about drugs as other passengers watched.

    “People were gawking at me and I looked suspicious when I had done nothing wrong,” André said in an interview, calling the experience “dehumanizing and demoralizing.”

    While the stated purpose of the program is to fight drug trafficking, the lawsuit says, drugs are rarely found, criminal charges seldom result, and seized cash provides a financial windfall for the police department.

    Clayton County police officers and investigators from the county district attorney’s office selectively stop passengers in the narrow jet bridges used to access planes, the lawsuit says. The officers take the passengers’ boarding passes and identification and interrogate them, sometimes searching their bags, before they board their flights, the lawyers say in the lawsuit.

    The police department calls the stops “consensual encounters” and says they are “random” — but the lawyers argue that, in reality, the stops “rely on coercion, and targets are selected disproportionately based on their race.” 

    Clayton County police spokesperson Julia Isaac said the department doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

    Atlanta Airport Searches Lawsuit
    Comedian Eric André, right, speaks at a news conference outside the federal courthouse in Atlanta on Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2022, as his attorneys Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, left, and Richard Deane watch.

    Kate Brumback / AP


    Police records show that from Aug. 30, 2020, to April 30, 2021, there were 402 jet bridge stops, and the passenger’s race was listed for 378 of those stops. Of those 378 passengers, 211, or 56%, were Black, and people of color accounted for 258 total stops, or 68%, the lawsuit says.

    Those 402 stops resulted in three reported drug seizures: about 10 grams of drugs from one passenger, 26 grams of “suspected THC gummies” from another, and six prescription pills without a prescription from a third, the lawsuit says. Only the first and third person were charged.

    Those 402 stops also yielded more than $1 million in cash and money orders from a total of 25 passengers. All but one were allowed to continue their travels, and only two — the ones who also had drugs — were charged, the lawsuit says. Eight of the 25 challenged the seizures, and Clayton County police settled each case, returning much of the seized money, the lawsuit says.

    Carrying large quantities of cash doesn’t mean someone is involved in illegal drug activity, the lawyers argue in the lawsuit, noting that people of color are less likely to have bank accounts and are more likely to carry large sums when they travel.

    English was stopped while flying from Atlanta, where he lives, to Los Angeles for work on Oct. 30, 2020, the lawsuit says. André had finished a shoot for HBO’s “The Righteous Gemstones” and was traveling from Charleston, South Carolina, to his home in Los Angeles on April 21, 2020, when he was stopped after a layover in Atlanta.

    Officers blocked them as they entered the jet bridge and asked if they were carrying illegal drugs, the lawsuit says. Both were asked to hand over their boarding passes and identification. An officer said he wanted to search English’s bag, and English agreed, not believing he had a choice.

    “I felt completely powerless. I felt violated. I felt cornered,” English said at a news conference outside the federal courthouse in Atlanta. “I felt like I had to comply if I wanted everything to go smoothly.”

    Atlanta Airport Searches Lawsuit
    Comedians Clayton English, center, and Eric André, right, speak with their attorney, Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, outside the federal courthouse in Atlanta on Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2022.

    Kate Brumback / AP


    André complained about his stop right after it happened. Clayton County police said at the time that it was “consensual.”

    “Mr. Andre chose to speak with investigators during the initial encounter,” the department said in a statement posted on Facebook. “During the encounter, Mr. Andre voluntarily provided the investigators information as to his travel plans. Mr. Andre also voluntarily consented to a search of his luggage but the investigators chose not to do so.”

    André said he felt a “moral calling” to bring the lawsuit “so these practices can stop and these cops can be held accountable for this because it’s unethical.”

    “I have the resources to bring national attention and international attention to this incident. It’s not an isolated incident,” he said. “If Black people don’t speak up for each other, who will?”

    One of the lawyers who filed the lawsuit, NYU School of Law Policing Project co-founder Barry Friedman, encouraged anyone else who has had similar experiences to get in touch.

    The lawsuit names Clayton County and the police chief, as well as four police officers and a district attorney’s office investigator. It alleges violations of the constitutional rights that protect against unreasonable searches and seizures and against racial discrimination.

    The comedians seek a jury trial and ask that the Clayton County police jet bridge interdiction program be declared unconstitutional. They also seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as legal costs.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pilot sues Southwest after colleague stripped naked in front of her during a flight

    Pilot sues Southwest after colleague stripped naked in front of her during a flight

    [ad_1]

    A Southwest Airlines pilot is suing the company, her union and a former colleague who pleaded guilty last year to dead-bolting the cockpit door during a flight and stripping naked in front of her.

    Christine Janning alleges that Southwest retaliated by grounding her after she reported Michael Haak to the company and the FBI that it kept him employed despite an alleged history of sexual misconduct and that managers disparaged her in memos.

    She also alleges that the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association conspired with the airline and refused to support her. She is suing Haak for sexual assault. He pleaded guilty last year to a federal misdemeanor charge of committing a lewd, indecent or obscene act and was sentenced to probation.

    Haak’s attorney, Michael Salnick, said Wednesday that his client disrobed only after Janning encouraged him to and never did anything else. Neither Southwest nor the union responded to phone calls seeking comment.

    According to the lawsuit filed last week in Orange County, Florida, Janning had never met Haak before August 2020, when she was his co-pilot on a flight from Philadelphia to Orlando. She says Haak, a 27-year veteran of the airline, had used his seniority rights the previous day to bump another pilot who had been scheduled to command the flight. Janning believes that’s because he saw a woman was the scheduled co-pilot.

    Janning said that when they reached cruising altitude, Haak told her this was his final flight and there was something he wanted to do before retirement.

    “Consensual prank”

    She said he bolted the door so no flight attendant could enter. He then allegedly put the plane on autopilot, stripped off his clothes, began watching pornography on his laptop and committed a lewd act for 30 minutes while taking photos and videos of himself.

    Salnick said it was Janning who asked Haak if there was anything he wanted to do before retiring. When he replied he wanted to fly naked, she told him to go ahead and then made sexual advances after he disrobed, Salnick said. He said Haak rejected those and adamantly denied a lewd act occurred.

    At his sentencing hearing last year, Haak called the incident “a consensual prank” that got out of hand.

    Janning’s attorney, Frank Podesta, denied she encouraged Haak or made any advances.

    Janning said in the lawsuit that she was “horrified,” but she kept flying the plane while taking photos “to create a record.” The plane landed safely. And that wasn’t Haak’s final flight — he flew for three more weeks.

    Meanwhile, Janning didn’t report the incident to a Southwest employee relations investigator until three months later. She said she waited because her boss had disparaged her to a male colleague previously. She said she asked the investigator not to inform her boss, but she did.

    Janning says she was soon told that because Haak had retired, the airline’s investigation was closed. Janning then went to the FBI, who charged Haak. She alleges Southwest had sent Haak to a Montreal sexual harassment counseling center after a 2008 incident with a flight attendant.

    Retaliation alleged

    Janning said as retaliation for the FBI report, she was grounded for more than three months, costing her part of her salary. She was then required to take “unnecessary” flight simulator training before she could work again.

    She also alleged that on the day she was grounded, the airline stranded her in Denver and the FBI had to book her a United Airlines flight so she could return home to Florida. She said a Southwest manager sent a memo to more than 25 employees “that made baseless allegations” about her flying competency.

    Janning said that when she contacted the union, its leaders did nothing to help her but did write a letter to Haak’s judge during his misdemeanor case saying he had a “spotless” record.

    No hearings have been scheduled.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump sues CNN for defamation

    Trump sues CNN for defamation

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump is suing CNN for defamation and asking for compensatory damages in excess of $75,000 and punitive damages of $475 million, according to a lawsuit filed Monday.

    He is claiming that the cable news giant has harmed his reputation with “false, defamatory, and inflammatory mischaracterizations of him” and that CNN’s conduct “is intended to interfere with [his] political career.”

    In particular, Trump argues that he’s entitled to hundreds of millions of dollars in punitive damages because of CNN’s use of the term the “Big Lie” to describe Trump’s “stated concerns about the integrity of the election process for the 2020 presidential election.” Trump’s lawyers say that the “Big Lie” “is a direct reference to a tactic employed by Adolf Hitler and appearing in Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” 

    “‘If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it,’” Trump’s lawyers stated, noting it was used by Hitler to generate hatred against Jews and to justify their genocide. 

    The lawsuit says, “CNN’s campaign of dissuasion in the form of libel and slander against the [Trump] has only escalated in recent months as CNN fears [he] will run for president in 2024.”

    The former president has been claiming since November 2020 that the election was rigged, despite dozens of lawsuits and recounts that found it was not. He is being investigated by Congress and the government for trying to overturn the election results, and two years later, he still claims that he won the 2020 election.

    CNN has not yet responded to a request for comment.

    The case has been assigned to Trump-appointed Judge Raaj Singhal, in the Southern District of Florida.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 2 Men Targeted A School Librarian Who Spoke Out Against Censorship. They’re Not Facing Any Consequences.

    2 Men Targeted A School Librarian Who Spoke Out Against Censorship. They’re Not Facing Any Consequences.

    [ad_1]

    At a July public library board meeting in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, middle school librarian Amanda Jones spoke out against book censorship. Conservatives in a neighboring town had been successful in taking away some resources for school libraries, and Jones didn’t want to see something similar happen in her town.

    “While book challenges are often done with the best intentions, and in the name of age appropriateness, they often target marginalized communities such as BIPOC [Black, Indigenous and people of color] and the LBGTQ community. They also target books on sexual health and reproduction,” Jones said at the meeting, according to her own transcription.

    “Once you start relocating and banning one topic, it becomes a slippery slope and where does it end?”

    By the next day, conservatives had decided that her quest to keep books with LGBTQ themes in the library meant that she was trying to provide sexually explicit materials to children.

    Michael Lunsford, the executive director of right-wing nonprofit Citizens for a New Louisiana, and Ryan Thames, who runs a politically conservative Facebook page called Bayou State of Mind, each spoke out against Jones on Facebook. They claimed in a series of posts that Jones was advocating for libraries to contain pornography and books that teach kids how to perform sexual acts, according to court documents.

    Public school educators have long faced disagreement from parents and other community members. But this type of vitriol was new to Jones, who has been a teacher for two decades and is the president of the state’s public school librarian association.

    “I’ve had some books questioned and challenged at my school, maybe once or twice in the 22 years I’ve been teaching,” she told HuffPost this week. “But this is personal. These people are posting online that I’m advocating for teaching anal sex to children.”

    Like many other librarians across the country, Jones also received an explicit death threat via email, and her friends and family have received harassing messages as well. The email, which was sent by a man in Texas about a month after the library meeting, accused her of indoctrinating children and being a pedophile, and it stated that the writer knew where Jones lived and worked. Jones said it ended with words meant to imitate a gun: “Click, click see you soon.” Police are trying to extradite the person who wrote the email.

    In August, Jones filed a lawsuit against Lunsford and Thames, seeking damages and asking a judge to bar them from posting about her on Facebook.

    “Nobody stands up to these people,” she told NBC News at the time. “They just say what they want and there are no repercussions and they ruin people’s reputations and there’s no consequences.”

    But last week, Judge Erika Sledge dismissed the lawsuit, saying that Jones was a limited public figure and that the bar to meet the definition of defamation was higher. Sledge also ruled that Lunsford and Thames were merely stating their opinion.

    “It’s a dangerous ruling,” Jones’ lawyer, Ellyn Clevenger, told Louisiana newspaper The Advocate. “It sets a dangerous precedent.”

    The posts attacking Jones and insisting that she had a secret harmful agenda are straight out of the right-wing playbook. For the past year, conservatives have used the same rhetoric in an attempt to defund and dismantle both school and public libraries.

    “This time last year it was CRT,” Jones said, referring to critical race theory, the college-level academic framework that conservatives have insisted educators are teaching children in public schools. “Now, they’re insisting there’s porn in the library.”

    Right-wing extremists have protested libraries over Drag Queen Story Hour events, where drag queens read to children, and parents have moved to censor LGBTQ authors. A record number of books have been challenged this year. Libraries around the country have received bomb threats, which so far have turned out to be hoaxes.

    And school librarians are not the only ones facing this kind of backlash. A nationwide teacher shortage — approximately 300,000 jobs are open for educators and support staff — is partly fueled by the right’s culture war. Gay teachers have resigned, and others have retired earlier than planned.

    “This is a disservice to educators everywhere,” Jones said.

    Despite the threats and the dismissal of the lawsuit, Jones has found some room for optimism. After all, no books have been removed from her library. “Technically, I feel like I won,” she said.

    Jones also said that she is lucky to have received an overwhelming amount of support, with hundreds of people reaching out to tell her to keep fighting and that she’s doing the right thing. But the attacks have taken a toll on her.

    “I started therapy, I had to start taking anxiety medication and my hair is falling out,” Jones said. And she’s still worried about what the lawsuit dismissal means for the future — and for other librarians who face the same kind of harassment.

    “I’ve lost all faith in the judicial system,” Jones said. “The judge’s ruling has opened the door. People are definitely going to feel more empowered to harass educators online.”

    CORRECTION: A prior version of this story mischaracterized the July meeting where Jones spoke as a school board meeting when it was a public library board meeting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California sues Amazon, alleging its dominance pushes up prices

    California sues Amazon, alleging its dominance pushes up prices

    [ad_1]

    California is suing Amazon, accusing the company of violating the state’s antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly stifling competition and forcing sellers to maintain higher prices on their products on other sites.

    In the lawsuit, filed Wednesday in San Francisco Superior Court, California Attorney General Rob Bonta claims that Amazon uses contract provisions to effectively bar third-party sellers and wholesale suppliers from offering lower prices for products on non-Amazon sites, including on their own websites. That, in turn, harms the ability of other retailers to compete, according to the complaint. 

    “Without basic price competition, without different online sites trying to outdo each other with lower prices, prices artificially stabilize at levels higher than would be the case in a competitive market,” the complaint states

    According to the suit, merchants who don’t follow Amazon’s pricing policy could have their products stripped from prominent listings on Amazon and face other sanctions, such as suspensions or terminations of their accounts. The suit seeks to stop Amazon from entering into contracts with sellers that harm price competition, as well as a court order to compel Amazon to pay damages to the state for increased prices. State officials did not say how much money they are seeking.

    The 84-page lawsuit mirrors another complaint filed last year by the District of Columbia, which was dismissed by a district judge earlier this year and is now going through an appeals process.

    But officials in California believe they won’t encounter a similar fate, partly due to information collected during a more than two-year investigation that involved subpoenas and interviews with sellers, Amazon’s competitors as well as current and former employees at the company.

    “Blocking competition”

    Seattle-based Amazon controls roughly 38% of online sales in the U.S., more than that of Walmart, eBay, Apple, Best Buy and Target combined, according to the research firm Insider Intelligence. A report from Democrats in Congress estimated Amazon’s share at about 50%. About 2 million sellers list their products on Amazon’s third-party marketplace, accounting for 58% of the company’s retail sales.

    During a news conference on Wednesday, Bonta said some vendors have expressed they would offer lower prices on other sites with lower seller fees, but don’t do so to avoid punishment from Amazon.

    “Amazon has stifled its competition for years, not by successfully competing, but by blocking competition on price,” Bonta said. “As a result, California families paid more, and now Amazon must pay the price.”

    He said the lawsuit is also a message to other companies who “illegally bend the market at the expense of California consumers, small business owners and the economy.”

    Amazon did not immediately reply to a request for comment from the Associated Press. The company has said in the past that sellers set their own prices on the platform. It has also said it has the right to avoid highlighting products that are not priced competitively.

    Despite that defense, Amazon’s market power has been a subject of scrutiny from lawmakers and advocacy groups calling for stricter antitrust regulations. Earlier this year, congressional lawmakers urged the Justice Department to investigate if the company collects data on sellers to develop competing products and offer them more prominently on its site. Critics have also lambasted the increasing fees Amazon imposes on sellers, which makes it more difficult for merchants to enter the market.

    Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been pushing bipartisan legislation aiming to limit Amazon and other Big Tech companies, including Apple, Meta and Google, from favoring their own products and services over rivals. The bill has cleared key committees but has languished in Congress for months amid intense pushback from the companies.

    Meanwhile, regulators have also been looking into Amazon’s business practices and deals. In July, the company offered concessions to settle two antitrust investigations in the European Union, including a promise to apply equal treatment to all sellers when ranking product offers on the site’s “buy box,” a coveted spot that makes items more visible to shoppers.

    In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission is investigating Amazon’s $3.9 billion acquisition of the primary health organization One Medical as well as the sign-up and cancellation practices of Amazon Prime, the company’s paid subscription service that offers deals and faster shipping.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Physicians for Informed Consent Sues Medical Board of California, Argues Board is Violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

    Physicians for Informed Consent Sues Medical Board of California, Argues Board is Violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

    [ad_1]

    Federal Court hearing will determine if Medical Board of California can continue what PIC calls “prosecuting scientific dissent as so-called ‘misinformation’”

    Press Release


    Aug 16, 2022

    Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, has filed a First Amendment free speech lawsuit (No. 2:22-cv-01203-JAM-KJN) and a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Medical Board of California in order to protect the free speech of all physicians in California.

    The Physicians for Informed Consent lawsuit argues that the Medical Board has weaponized the phrase “misinformation” to unconstitutionally target dissenting physicians, including by “attempting to intimidate by investigation, censor and sanction physicians who publicly disagree with the government’s ever-evolving, erratic, and contradictory public health Covid-19 edicts.”

    Mr. Rick Jaffe, the litigator for this Physicians for Informed Consent lawsuit, structured the legal arguments to emphasize that 75 years of judicial precedent have established that licensing agencies cannot sanction, prosecute or even investigate physicians for speaking out in public about a matter of public concern, regardless of the content, the expressed view point, and even if those views are contrary to the opinions of the “medical establishment.”

    As an example of the Medical Board’s alleged targeting of scientific dissent, the First Amended Complaint refers to the following statement in the Medical Board’s February 10-11 Meeting minutes:

    “Ms. Lawson stated it is the duty of the board to protect the public from misinformation and disinformation by physicians, noting the increase in the dissemination of healthcare related misinformation and disinformation on social media platforms, in the media, and online, putting patient lives at risk in causing unnecessary strain on the healthcare system.”

    This Physicians for Informed Consent lawsuit also examines California Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098), which aims to censor so-called “misinformation” spoken by physicians to their patients, to the extent that the bill is irreparably vague. As PIC General Counsel Greg Glaser explained in his declaration filed in court on Aug. 9, 2022:

    “From my perspective, the Board’s standard for misinformation is so hopelessly vague, it is impossible for me to advise my client PIC whether the Board will arbitrarily prosecute PIC for content on the attachment (‘COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATES: 20 Scientific Facts That Challenge the Assumptions‘) even though such PIC content is factual and meticulously cited.”

    The scheduled hearing on PIC’s motion for preliminary injunction is Sept. 27, 2022. The judge assigned to the case is the Honorable John A. Mendez. PIC has requested Judge Mendez issue a preliminary injunction that “the Board be ordered to stop all its investigations of physicians for protected free speech, including but not limited to the public expression of views about the pandemic, the mandates, vaccines, treatments or any other content relating to the pandemic.”

    Make a contribution to Physicians for Informed Consent here: physiciansforinformedconsent.org/donate.

    Press contact:
    info@picphysicians.org
    (925) 642-6651

    Source: Physicians for Informed Consent

    [ad_2]

    Source link