ReportWire

Tag: Lawsuit

  • Court sides with voodoo worshiper over religious exemption

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A state appeals court has sided with a medical worker and voodoo worshipper who was fired by University of Massachusetts Medical Health Care after her request for a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine was rejected.

    The ruling, issued Monday by the state Court of Appeals, overturns a Superior Court ruling that rejected a lawsuit filed by Rachelle Jeune against UMass Medical over its denial of a religious exemption in October 2021 as part of her employment as a surgical technician.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“(6 4@?4=F56 E92E E96 A=2:?E:77’D DE2E65 36=:67D E92E 96C 3@5J 😀 2 E6>A=6 @7 v@5 2?5 E92E D96 AC2J65 E@ v@5 2?5 C646:G65 2 >6DD286 ?@E E@ C646:G6 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?2E:@? H6C6 36=:67D E92E 2 EC:6C @7 724E 4@F=5 56E6C>:?6 H6C6 C6=:8:@FD 😕 ?2EFC6[” E96 7@FC;F586 A2?6= HC@E6 😕 E96 a`A286 CF=:?8]k^Am

    kAmy6F?6[ H9@ 😀 @C:8:?2==J 7C@> w2:E:[ D2:5 😕 4@FCE 7:=:?8D E92E D96 😀 2 56G@FE r9C:DE:2? 2?5 G@@5@@ AC24E:E:@?6C H9@ 92D “D:?46C6” C6=:8:@FD @3;64E:@?D E@ E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6] $96 2=D@ D2:5 D96 H2D 4@?46C?65 E96 G244:?6 H@F=5 “2=E6C” 96C 86?6E:4D]k^Am

    kAm“x ?6G6C 5:5 ?@C x H:== EFC? >J 324< @? >@56C? >65:4:?6D 2?5 :ED AC24E:46D] w@H6G6C[ x 92G6 2=H2JD 4@?DF=E H:E9 >J q:3=6 7:CDE[ AC2J E@ >J v@5 7@C 8F:52?46 2?5 C6=J @? 9:D 962=:?8 A@H6C] |J 7:?2= 564:D:@? H:== 2596C6 E@ H92E 96 8F:56D >6 E@ 5@[” D96 DE2E65] “!C@4665:?8 H:E9 r~’xs`h H@F=5 36 2 D:? 282:?DE >J 4@?D4:6?46]”k^Am

    kAmqFE &|2DD |6>@C:2=’D C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@? 4@>>:EE66 56?:65 96C C6BF6DE65 6I6>AE:@?[ D2J:?8 :E H2D 32D65 @? 72=D6 4=2:>D 23@FE E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6] y6F?6 H2D 7:C65 😕 s646>36C a_a` 7@C C67FD:?8 E@ 86E E96 G244:?6[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 4@FCE 5@4F>6?ED]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D C6BF6DE6C 2DD6CED E96J 42??@E C646:G6 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6D 32D65 @? E96:C r9C:DE:2? 72:E9 3642FD6 E96J H:== ‘86?6E:42==J 2=E6C’ E96:C 3@5J[” E96 4@>>:EE66 HC@E6 😕 C6;64E:?8 96C C6BF6DE] “%9:D 😀 A2E6?E=J 72=D6 – ?@?6 @7 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6D 86?6E:42==J 2=E6C E96 3@5J @C 492?86 2 A6CD@?’D s}p]”k^Am

    kAm“#6=:2?46 @? 56>@?DEC23=J 72=D6 :?7@C>2E:@? 42??@E 36 2 32D:D 7@C 2 C6=:8:@FD 244@>>@52E:@?[” E96 A2?6= D2:5]k^Am

    kAm$9@CE=J 27E6C[ y6F?6 7:=65 2 =2HDF:E 282:?DE &|2DD 4:E:?8 5:D4C:>:?2E:@? 3FE 2 $FA6C:@C r@FCE ;F586 :DDF65 2 DF>>2CJ ;F58>6?E C6;64E:?8 E96 =:E:82E:@?] %96 4@FCE CF=65 E92E D96 925 “72:=65 E@ 2CE:4F=2E6 2 D:?46C6=J 96=5 C6=:8:@FD 36=:67 E92E AC64=F565 96C 7C@> 86EE:?8 G244:?2E65” 2>@?8 @E96C C62D@?D 7@C E@DD:?8 @FE E96 =2HDF:E] w6C =2HJ6CD 2AA62=65]k^Am

    kAm%96 2AA62=D 4@FCE C6G6CD65 E96 =@H6C 4@FCE’D 564:D:@? 😕 E96 CF=:?8 |@?52J[ D2J:?8 &|2DD |6>@C:2= “72:=65” E@ >66E E96 4C:E6C:2 7@C 56?J:?8 y6F?6’D C6BF6DE 7@C 2 C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@? 3J 56>@?DEC2E:?8 “2? F?5F6 3FC56? 2D 2 >2EE6C @7 =2H]”k^Am

    kAm&|2DD |6>@C:2= 564=:?65 E96 4@>>6?E @? E96 A6?5:?8 =:E:82E:@? 3FE :DDF65 2 DE2E6>6?E D2J:?8 E96 @C82?:K2E:@? 😀 “AC@F5 @7 E96 96C@:4 677@CED 3J @FC 42C68:G6CD H9@ H@C<65 E:C6=6DD=J E9C@F89 E96 r~’xs`h A2?56>:4 F?56C E96 >@DE ECJ:?8 2?5 F?46CE2:? @7 E:>6D]”k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6>6?E D2:5 &|2DD |6>@C:2= :>A=6>6?E65 2 r~’xs`h G244:?6 >2?52E6 7@C 2== 6>A=@J66D “:? 244@C52?46 H:E9 7656C2= =2H 2?5 E@ AC@G:56 2 D276 6?G:C@?>6?E 7@C 2== >6>36CD @7 @FC 4@>>F?:EJ – :?4=F5:?8 E96 :>>F?@4@>AC@>:D65]” #6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@?D 7C@> E96 G244:?6 >2?52E6 H6C6 C6G:6H65 2?5 2AAC@G65 “H96? 2AAC@AC:2E6[” E96 DE2E6>6?E D2:5]k^Am

    kAmx? a_a`[ E96?v@G] r92C=:6 q2<6C :DDF65 2 >2?52E6 C6BF:C:?8 DE2E6 H@C<6CD E@ 2EE6DE E92E E96J 2C6 G244:?2E65 282:?DE r~’xs`h @C C6BF6DE 2 >65:42= @C C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@? E@ AC6G6?E 7FCE96C :?764E:@?D] (@C<6CD 72465 5:D4:A=:?6[ :?4=F5:?8 E6C>:?2E:@?[ 7@C ?@E AC@G:5:?8 AC@@7 @7 G244:?2E:@?]k^Am

    kAm}62C=J 2== @7 E96 DE2E6’D 9@DA:E2=D :DDF65 D:>:=2C G244:?2E:@? C6BF:C6>6?ED[ 2D H6== 2D AC:G2E6 2?5 AF3=:4 4@==686D[ :?4=F5:?8 2== &?:G6CD:EJ @7 |2DD249FD6EED 42>AFD6D]k^Am

    kAm(9:=6 q2<6C’D G244:?6 >2?52E6 DFCG:G65 D6G6C2= =682= 492==6?86D[ 5@K6?D @7 DE2E6 H@C<6CD 7:=65 =2HDF:ED @G6C 36:?8 C6;64E65 7@C C6=:8:@FD @C >65:42= 6I6>AE:@?D] $@>6 @7 E96 =682= 492==6?86D[ :?4=F5:?8 @?6 7:=65 3J 2 8C@FA @7 DE2E6 EC@@A6CD[ H6C6 DF446DD7F=]k^Am

    kAmv@G] |2FC2 w62=6J @77:4:2==J 6?565 E96 DE2E6’D 6>6C86?4J 564=2C2E:@? 😕 |2J a_ab – :?4=F5:?8 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6 >2?52E6 7@C DE2E6 6>A=@J66D] qFE >2?J @7 E96 =2HDF:ED DE6>>:?8 7C@> 56?:2=D @7 C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@?D 92G6 =F>36C65 @? E96 4@FCED]k^Am

    kAm~? q624@? w:==[ DE2E6 =2H>2<6CD 2C6 4@?D:56C:?8 2 AC@A@D2= E@ 6=:>:?2E6 2 D64E:@? @7 E96 DE2E6’D G244:?6 =2H E92E 2==@HD A2C6?ED H:E9 “D:?46C6 C6=:8:@FD 36=:67D” E@ 36 6I6>AE65 7C@> 2 C6BF:C6>6?E E@ DF3>:E AC@@7 @7 G244:?2E:@? E@ 6?C@== E96:C 49:=5C6? 😕 AF3=:4 D49@@=D]k^Am

    kAmq24<6CD @7 E96 A=2? 2C8F6 E92E D@>6 A2C6?ED 2C6 >:DFD:?8 C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@?D 3642FD6 E96J 2C6 F?23=6 E@ 86E 2 >65:42= 6I6>AE:@?] %96 DE2E6 5@6D?’E 2==@H A6CD@?2= 6I6>AE:@?D E@ D49@@=C6BF:C65 :>>F?:K2E:@?D[ H9:49 5@?’E :?4=F56 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6]k^Am

    kAmrC:E:4D @7 E96 AC@A@D2=[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 r2E9@=:4 r9FC49[ 2C8F6 E92E 6=:>:?2E:?8 E96 6I6>AE:@? H@F=5 36 5:D4C:>:?2E@CJ 2?5 G:@=2E6 C6=:8:@FD 36=:67D]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Court sides with voodoo worshiper over religious exemption

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A state appeals court has sided with a medical worker and voodoo worshipper who was fired by University of Massachusetts Medical Health Care after her request for a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine was rejected.

    The ruling, issued Monday by the state Court of Appeals, overturns a Superior Court ruling that rejected a lawsuit filed by Rachelle Jeune against UMass Medical over its denial of a religious exemption in October 2021 as part of her employment as a surgical technician.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“(6 4@?4=F56 E92E E96 A=2:?E:77’D DE2E65 36=:67D E92E 96C 3@5J 😀 2 E6>A=6 @7 v@5 2?5 E92E D96 AC2J65 E@ v@5 2?5 C646:G65 2 >6DD286 ?@E E@ C646:G6 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?2E:@? H6C6 36=:67D E92E 2 EC:6C @7 724E 4@F=5 56E6C>:?6 H6C6 C6=:8:@FD 😕 ?2EFC6[” E96 7@FC;F586 A2?6= HC@E6 😕 E96 a`A286 CF=:?8]k^Am

    kAmy6F?6[ H9@ 😀 @C:8:?2==J 7C@> w2:E:[ D2:5 😕 4@FCE 7:=:?8D E92E D96 😀 2 56G@FE r9C:DE:2? 2?5 G@@5@@ AC24E:E:@?6C H9@ 92D “D:?46C6” C6=:8:@FD @3;64E:@?D E@ E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6] $96 2=D@ D2:5 D96 H2D 4@?46C?65 E96 G244:?6 H@F=5 “2=E6C” 96C 86?6E:4D]k^Am

    kAm“x ?6G6C 5:5 ?@C x H:== EFC? >J 324< @? >@56C? >65:4:?6D 2?5 :ED AC24E:46D] w@H6G6C[ x 92G6 2=H2JD 4@?DF=E H:E9 >J q:3=6 7:CDE[ AC2J E@ >J v@5 7@C 8F:52?46 2?5 C6=J @? 9:D 962=:?8 A@H6C] |J 7:?2= 564:D:@? H:== 2596C6 E@ H92E 96 8F:56D >6 E@ 5@[” D96 DE2E65] “!C@4665:?8 H:E9 r~’xs`h H@F=5 36 2 D:? 282:?DE >J 4@?D4:6?46]”k^Am

    kAmqFE &|2DD |6>@C:2=’D C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@? 4@>>:EE66 56?:65 96C C6BF6DE65 6I6>AE:@?[ D2J:?8 :E H2D 32D65 @? 72=D6 4=2:>D 23@FE E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6] y6F?6 H2D 7:C65 😕 s646>36C a_a` 7@C C67FD:?8 E@ 86E E96 G244:?6[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 4@FCE 5@4F>6?ED]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D C6BF6DE6C 2DD6CED E96J 42??@E C646:G6 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6D 32D65 @? E96:C r9C:DE:2? 72:E9 3642FD6 E96J H:== ‘86?6E:42==J 2=E6C’ E96:C 3@5J[” E96 4@>>:EE66 HC@E6 😕 C6;64E:?8 96C C6BF6DE] “%9:D 😀 A2E6?E=J 72=D6 — ?@?6 @7 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6D 86?6E:42==J 2=E6C E96 3@5J @C 492?86 2 A6CD@?’D s}p]”k^Am

    kAm“#6=:2?46 @? 56>@?DEC23=J 72=D6 :?7@C>2E:@? 42??@E 36 2 32D:D 7@C 2 C6=:8:@FD 244@>>@52E:@?[” E96 A2?6= D2:5]k^Am

    kAm$9@CE=J 27E6C[ y6F?6 7:=65 2 =2HDF:E 282:?DE &|2DD 4:E:?8 5:D4C:>:?2E:@?[ 3FE 2 $FA6C:@C r@FCE ;F586 :DDF65 2 DF>>2CJ ;F58>6?E C6;64E:?8 :E] %96 4@FCE CF=65 E92E D96 925 “72:=65 E@ 2CE:4F=2E6 2 D:?46C6=J 96=5 C6=:8:@FD 36=:67 E92E AC64=F565 96C 7C@> 86EE:?8 G244:?2E65” 2>@?8 @E96C C62D@?D 7@C E@DD:?8 @FE E96 =2HDF:E] w6C =2HJ6CD 2AA62=65]k^Am

    kAm%96 2AA62=D 4@FCE C6G6CD65 E96 =@H6C 4@FCE’D 564:D:@? 😕 |@?52J’D CF=:?8[ D2J:?8 &|2DD |6>@C:2= “72:=65” E@ >66E E96 4C:E6C:2 7@C 56?J:?8 y6F?6’D C6BF6DE 7@C 2 C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@? 3J 56>@?DEC2E:?8 “2? F?5F6 3FC56? 2D 2 >2EE6C @7 =2H]”k^Am

    kAm&|2DD |6>@C:2= 564=:?65 E96 4@>>6?E @? E96 A6?5:?8 =:E:82E:@?[ 3FE :DDF65 2 DE2E6>6?E D2J:?8 E96 @C82?:K2E:@? 😀 “AC@F5 @7 E96 96C@:4 677@CED 3J @FC 42C68:G6CD H9@ H@C<65 E:C6=6DD=J E9C@F89 E96 r~’xs`h A2?56>:4 F?56C E96 >@DE ECJ:?8 2?5 F?46CE2:? @7 E:>6D]”k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6>6?E D2:5 &|2DD |6>@C:2= :>A=6>6?E65 2 r~’xs`h G244:?6 >2?52E6 7@C 2== 6>A=@J66D “:? 244@C52?46 H:E9 7656C2= =2H 2?5 E@ AC@G:56 2 D276 6?G:C@?>6?E 7@C 2== >6>36CD @7 @FC 4@>>F?:EJ — :?4=F5:?8 E96 :>>F?@4@>AC@>:D65]” #6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@?D 7C@> E96 G244:?6 >2?52E6 H6C6 C6G:6H65 2?5 2AAC@G65 “H96? 2AAC@AC:2E6[” E96 DE2E6>6?E D2:5]k^Am

    kAmx? a_a`[ E96?v@G] r92C=:6 q2<6C :DDF65 2 >2?52E6 C6BF:C:?8 DE2E6 H@C<6CD E@ 2EE6DE E92E E96J 2C6 G244:?2E65 282:?DE r~’xs`h @C C6BF6DE 2 >65:42= @C C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@? E@ AC6G6?E 7FCE96C :?764E:@?D] (@C<6CD 72465 5:D4:A=:?6[ :?4=F5:?8 E6C>:?2E:@?[ 7@C ?@E AC@G:5:?8 AC@@7 @7 G244:?2E:@?]k^Am

    kAm}62C=J 2== @7 E96 DE2E6’D 9@DA:E2=D :DDF65 D:>:=2C G244:?2E:@? C6BF:C6>6?ED[ 2D H6== 2D AC:G2E6 2?5 AF3=:4 4@==686D[ :?4=F5:?8 2== &?:G6CD:EJ @7 |2DD249FD6EED 42>AFD6D]k^Am

    kAm(9:=6 q2<6C’D G244:?6 >2?52E6 DFCG:G65 D6G6C2= =682= 492==6?86D[ 5@K6?D @7 DE2E6 H@C<6CD 7:=65 =2HDF:ED @G6C 36:?8 C6;64E65 7@C C6=:8:@FD @C >65:42= 6I6>AE:@?D] $@>6 @7 E96 =682= 492==6?86D[ :?4=F5:?8 @?6 7:=65 3J 2 8C@FA @7 DE2E6 EC@@A6CD[ H6C6 DF446DD7F=]k^Am

    kAmv@G] |2FC2 w62=6J @77:4:2==J 6?565 E96 DE2E6’D 6>6C86?4J 564=2C2E:@? 😕 |2J a_ab — :?4=F5:?8 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6 >2?52E6 7@C DE2E6 6>A=@J66D] qFE >2?J @7 E96 =2HDF:ED DE6>>:?8 7C@> 56?:2=D @7 C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@?D 92G6 =F>36C65 @? E96 4@FCED]k^Am

    kAm~? q624@? w:==[ DE2E6 =2H>2<6CD 2C6 4@?D:56C:?8 2 AC@A@D2= E@ 6=:>:?2E6 2 D64E:@? @7 E96 DE2E6’D G244:?6 =2H E92E 2==@HD A2C6?ED H:E9 “D:?46C6 C6=:8:@FD 36=:67D” E@ 36 6I6>AE65 7C@> 2 C6BF:C6>6?E E@ DF3>:E AC@@7 @7 G244:?2E:@? E@ 6?C@== E96:C 49:=5C6? 😕 AF3=:4 D49@@=D]k^Am

    kAmq24<6CD @7 E96 A=2? 2C8F6 E92E D@>6 A2C6?ED 2C6 >:DFD:?8 C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@?D 3642FD6 E96J 2C6 F?23=6 E@ 86E 2 >65:42= 6I6>AE:@?] %96 DE2E6 5@6D?’E 2==@H A6CD@?2= 6I6>AE:@?D E@ D49@@=C6BF:C65 :>>F?:K2E:@?D[ H9:49 5@?’E :?4=F56 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6]k^Am

    kAmrC:E:4D @7 E96 AC@A@D2=[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 r2E9@=:4 r9FC49[ 2C8F6 E92E 6=:>:?2E:?8 E96 6I6>AE:@? H@F=5 36 5:D4C:>:?2E@CJ 2?5 G:@=2E6 :?5:G:5F2=D’ C6=:8:@FD 36=:67D]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Settlement reached for woman who said she was injured on Epic Universe ride

    [ad_1]

    Update: On Friday, September 26 a notice of settlement and a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice as to the defendant, Universal City Development Partners, Ltd., were both filed in the woman’s lawsuit alleging that she sustained an injury from riding the Stardust Racers roller coaster.The case is still pending as of Saturday, September 27 according to the Orange County Clerk of Courts. A lawyer for the plaintiff says they are unable to make further comment other than confirm a settlement has been. WESH 2 also reached out to Universal Orlando Resort for comment on the settlement and dismissal notices.Original story below:A lawsuit has been filed by a Central Florida woman who claims she was injured on the same ride as a man who was found unresponsive and later died. The man, Kevin Rodriguez Zavala, 32, was found unresponsive on the Stardust Racers roller coaster earlier this month. The Orange County Medical Examiner’s Office determined he died from multiple blunt impact injuries and ruled the death accidental. The woman’s attorney has asked that her name not be released at this time. >> Video above: Incident report details unresponsive man on Epic Universe ride who later diedHer complaint says Stardust Racers caused her head to shake violently and slam against her seat’s headrest. It goes on to say she had a reasonable expectation that the rides inside Epic Universe would be reasonably safe.One of the allegations is that Universal failed to properly restrain her head while riding Stardust Racers. Before the grand opening of Epic Universe in May, she got to check out the new immersive worlds and attractions during the preview period on April 30.The Spetsas-Buist law firm filed the lawsuit on Wednesday, asking for a jury trial to decide how much Universal should compensate their client for her head injuries.Universal Orlando Resort President Karen Irwin said the ride was functioning properly when Rodriguez Zavala was on it. The Ben Crump Law Firm has started its own investigation on behalf of Rodriguez Zavala’s family in search of answers about how he died from what the medical examiner described as blunt impact injuries. What happened to the woman is not included in state records through July 15, which show a 63-year-old man with a pre-existing condition experienced dizziness, and a 47-year-old woman with a pre-existing condition had visual disturbance and numbness after riding Stardust Racers. Universal did not respond to requests from WESH 2 for comment about this new lawsuit. >> This is a developing story and will be updated

    ORLANDO, Fla. —

    Update:

    On Friday, September 26 a notice of settlement and a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice as to the defendant, Universal City Development Partners, Ltd., were both filed in the woman’s lawsuit alleging that she sustained an injury from riding the Stardust Racers roller coaster.

    The case is still pending as of Saturday, September 27 according to the Orange County Clerk of Courts. A lawyer for the plaintiff says they are unable to make further comment other than confirm a settlement has been. WESH 2 also reached out to Universal Orlando Resort for comment on the settlement and dismissal notices.

    Original story below:

    A lawsuit has been filed by a Central Florida woman who claims she was injured on the same ride as a man who was found unresponsive and later died.

    The man, Kevin Rodriguez Zavala, 32, was found unresponsive on the Stardust Racers roller coaster earlier this month. The Orange County Medical Examiner’s Office determined he died from multiple blunt impact injuries and ruled the death accidental.

    The woman’s attorney has asked that her name not be released at this time.

    >> Video above: Incident report details unresponsive man on Epic Universe ride who later died

    Her complaint says Stardust Racers caused her head to shake violently and slam against her seat’s headrest. It goes on to say she had a reasonable expectation that the rides inside Epic Universe would be reasonably safe.

    One of the allegations is that Universal failed to properly restrain her head while riding Stardust Racers.

    Before the grand opening of Epic Universe in May, she got to check out the new immersive worlds and attractions during the preview period on April 30.

    The Spetsas-Buist law firm filed the lawsuit on Wednesday, asking for a jury trial to decide how much Universal should compensate their client for her head injuries.

    Universal Orlando Resort President Karen Irwin said the ride was functioning properly when Rodriguez Zavala was on it.

    The Ben Crump Law Firm has started its own investigation on behalf of Rodriguez Zavala’s family in search of answers about how he died from what the medical examiner described as blunt impact injuries.

    What happened to the woman is not included in state records through July 15, which show a 63-year-old man with a pre-existing condition experienced dizziness, and a 47-year-old woman with a pre-existing condition had visual disturbance and numbness after riding Stardust Racers.

    Universal did not respond to requests from WESH 2 for comment about this new lawsuit.

    >> This is a developing story and will be updated

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Marshall fire payments due by year’s end, but how Xcel’s $640 million settlement will be divvied up to remain secret

    [ad_1]

    Marshall fire victims who joined the massive lawsuit against Xcel Energy are expected to receive their portion of the $640 million settlement before the end of the year, but the amount of money each plaintiff receives will not be publicly disclosed.

    Xcel and plaintiffs’ attorneys announced the settlement Wednesday, just one day before the start of jury selection in a two-month civil trial to determine blame for the 2021 wildfire that killed two people and destroyed more than 1,000 homes in Boulder County.

    The full terms of the settlement will not be released, though private corporations involved in the litigation may need to disclose their payouts to shareholders. The individual homeowners who participated in the lawsuit will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements, said Paul Starita, a lawyer at Singleton Schreiber, one of the firms that represented homeowners.

    Teleport Communications America and Qwest Corporation, two co-defendants in the lawsuit, will contribute an undisclosed amount toward the settlement total.

    Not every person or company among the more than 4,000 plaintiffs will receive the same amount of money, Stirata said. The amount each receives will depend on the level of damages.

    Plaintiffs whose houses burned to the ground would be in line to receive more money than people who suffered smoke and soot damage, he said. People who rented housing or owned rental properties were also parties to the lawsuit, as were some people who only evacuated and sued for the nuisance. And claims involving deaths would be compensated with a higher amount.

    Attorneys figured out months ago what percentage of any settlement or jury award each plaintiff should receive, because those dollar figures were part of the mediation and settlement negotiations, Stirata said.

    “You add up all of those figures and the defendant pays you that lump sum and you give that to your clients,” he said. “It’s a fair settlement.”

    Payments should start being distributed within 60 days and be complete by the end of the year, Stirata said.

    The lawyers will also get a cut of the settlement as their payment for taking on the case. Each firm sets its own fee for the clients it accepted, Sirata said. He declined to reveal what percentage Singleton Schreiber will receive.

    A large chunk of the settlement will go to the 200 insurance companies that sued Xcel to compensate for the massive property damage claims they paid in the fire’s aftermath. In a legal filing ahead of the trial, those insurance firms said they suffered $1.7 billion in losses. It is not known what settlement amount they agreed to.

    The Target Corporation was a plaintiff as well because its store in Superior was closed for months due to fire damage. The city of Boulder, Boulder County and the Boulder Valley School District were also plaintiffs.

    The Dec. 30, 2021, Marshall fire was the most devastating wildfire in Colorado history, costing more than $2 billion in damages.

    The fire ignited first on the property of the Twelve Tribes religious cult, which has a compound on Eldorado Drive, near the Marshall Mesa Open Space. That ignition was caused by smoldering embers left over from a Dec. 24 burn-pit fire on the property.

    [ad_2]

    Noelle Phillips

    Source link

  • Justice Department sues California, other states that have declined to share voter rolls

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Justice Department sued California Secretary of State Shirley Weber on Thursday for failing to hand over the state’s voter rolls, alleging she is unlawfully preventing federal authorities from ensuring state compliance with federal voting regulations and safeguarding federal elections against fraud.

    The Justice Department also sued Weber’s counterparts in Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, who have similarly declined its requests for their states’ voter rolls.

    “Clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement on the litigation. “Every state has a responsibility to ensure that voter registration records are accurate, accessible, and secure — states that don’t fulfill that obligation will see this Department of Justice in court.”

    In its lawsuit against Weber, who is the state’s top elections official, the Justice Department argues that it is charged — including under the National Voter Registration Act — with ensuring that states have proper protocols for registering voters and maintaining accurate and up-to-date rolls, and therefore is due access to state voter rolls in order to ensure they are so maintained.

    “The United States has now been forced to bring the instant action to seek legal remedy for Defendants’ refusal to comply with lawful requests pursuant to federal law,” the lawsuit states.

    Weber, in a statement, called the lawsuit “a fishing expedition and pretext for partisan policy objectives,” a “blatant overreach” and “an unprecedented intrusion unsupported by law or any previous practice or policy of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

    “The U.S. Department of Justice is attempting to utilize the federal court system to erode the rights of the State of California and its citizens by trying to intimidate California officials into giving up the private and personal information of 23 million California voters,” Weber said.

    She said California law requires that state officials “protect our voters’ sensitive private information,” and that the Justice Department not only “failed to provide sufficient legal authority to justify their intrusive demands,” but ignored invitations from the state for federal officials to come to Sacramento and view the data in person — a process Weber said was “contemplated by federal statutes” and would “protect California citizens’ private and personal data from misuse.”

    The Justice Department has demanded a “current electronic copy of California’s computerized statewide voter registration list”; lists of “all duplicate registration records in Imperial, Los Angeles, Napa, Nevada, San Bernardino, Siskiyou, and Stanislaus counties”; a “list of all duplicate registrants who were removed from the statewide voter registration list” and the dates of their removals.

    It has also demanded a list of all registrations that have been canceled because voters in the state died; an explanation for a recent decline in the recorded number of “inactive” voters in the state; and a list of “all registrations, including date of birth, driver’s license number, and last four digits of Social Security Number, that were cancelled due to non-citizenship of the registrant.”

    The litigation is the latest move by the Trump administration to push its demands around voting policies onto individual states, which are broadly tasked under the constitution with managing their own elections.

    The lawsuit follows an executive order by Trump in March that purported to radically reshape voting rules nationwide, including by requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship and requiring states to disregard mail ballots that are not received by election day.

    The order built on years of unsubstantiated claims by Trump — and refuted by experts — that the U.S. voting system currently allows for rampant fraud and abuse, and that those failures compromised the results of elections, including his 2020 loss to Joe Biden.

    Various voting rights groups and 19 states, including California, have sued to block the order.

    Advocacy groups say the order, and especially it’s requirements for proving citizenship, would disenfranchise legal U.S. citizen voters who lack ready access to identifying documents such as passports and REAL IDs. They have said barring the acceptance of mail ballots received after election day would also create barriers for voters, especially in large state such as California that need time to process large volumes of ballots.

    California currently accepts ballots if they are postmarked by election day and received within a certain number of days after.

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has called Trump’s executive order an “illegal power grab” that California and other states will “fight like hell” to stop. His office referred questions about the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit against Weber to Weber’s office.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

    Assistant U.S. Atty. Gen. Harmeet K. Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, defended the need for the lawsuit, saying in a statement that clean voter rolls “protect American citizens from voting fraud and abuse, and restore their confidence that their states’ elections are conducted properly, with integrity, and in compliance with the law.”

    Weber, who in April called Trump’s executive order “an illegal attempt to trample on the states and Congress’s constitutional authority over elections,” said Thursday that she would not be bowed by the lawsuit.

    “The sensitive data of California citizens should not be used as a political tool to undermine the public trust and integrity of elections,” she said. “I will always stand with Californians to protect states’ rights against federal overreach and our voters’ sensitive personal information. Californians deserve better. America deserves better.”

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Widow of D.C. plane crash victim files wrongful death lawsuit against government, airlines

    [ad_1]

    The widow of one of the victims of the deadly midair collision near Ronald Reagan National Airport in January has filed a lawsuit against the federal government and two airlines for the crash. CBS News senior transportation correspondent Kris Van Cleave has the details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hershey wins lawsuit claiming its Reese’s Halloween candies aren’t spooky enough

    [ad_1]

    Hershey received a treat Friday when a judge dismissed a lawsuit claiming the company’s Reese’s candies tricked customers by depicting spooky Halloween designs on their packaging, while the unwrapped chocolates were in fact featureless. 

    U.S. District Judge Melissa Damian ruled Friday that the consumers who filed the class-action lawsuit failed to show that the lack of confectionary details on the chocolate and peanut butter candies, such as missing mouths and eyes on jack-‘o-lanterns, ghosts and other Halloween-themed figures, had cause them economic harm.

    Damian pointed out that while the consumers may have been disappointed by the chocolates’ unwrapped appearances, the candies were not “so flawed as to render them worthless.” In other words, the chocolate still tasted like chocolate, even if they weren’t as haunting as the purchasers had expected from the packaging. 

    A 2024 lawsuit alleged Hershey had engaged in deceptive advertising by depicting chocolate pumpkins with carved faces, when the unwrapped chocolates were blank. A judge dismissed the lawsuit on Sept. 19. 

    U.S. District Court of Southern Florida


    The lawsuit focused on several Hershey candies that are marketed around Halloween, including its Reese’s Peanut Butter Pumpkins and its Reese’s White Ghost, as well as a few other holiday-themed chocolates like its Reese’s Peanut Butter Shapes Assortment Snowmen Stockings Bells. 

    The original lawsuit, filed in 2024, claimed that Hershey used deceptive advertising because the “artistic designs” depicted on the wrappers were absent from the actual candies.

    screenshot-2025-09-24-at-12-52-42-pm.png

    A photo of an unwrapped Reese’s Peanut Butter Pumpkin included in a 2024 lawsuit alleging deceptive advertising over the difference between the wrapper and the appearance of the actual candy. 

    U.S. District Court of Southern Florida


    But the difference between the wrappers and the chocolates’ actual appearances wasn’t enough to prove “a concrete economic injury,” Damian wrote on Friday.

    “Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations as to why they have allegedly been deprived of the benefit of their bargain all boil down to their subjective, personal expectations of how the products would or should have looked when unpackaged,” the judge added.

    Anthony Russo, an attorney for the consumers who sued Hershey, said that they intend to amend the complaint.

    “The court is merely saying that the plaintiffs did not expressly allege in the complaint that the products were worthless to them or that they paid a price premium and allowed plaintiffs to amend the complaint, which they will be doing,” Russo told CBS News. 

    He added, “We believe that companies should not be awarded with sales when they falsely represent the main characteristic of the product and only have to pay damages if it can be shown that the consumers paid a premium.”

    Hershey didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. 

    Aimee Picchi

    Aimee Picchi is the associate managing editor for CBS MoneyWatch, where she covers business and personal finance. She previously worked at Bloomberg News and has written for national news outlets including USA Today and Consumer Reports.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Paradise Entertainment to Appeal Macau Court Decision on LT Game IP Patents

    [ad_1]

    Paradise Entertainment Limited is challenging a ruling by Macau’s Judicial Court of First Instance, which invalidated two electronic table game patents owned by its subsidiary, LT Game Limited. The case was brought against the defendants: Shuffle Master Asia Limited (Macau and Australia), Shuffle Master Inc., and SG Jogos Ásia S.A. Although the patents had allegedly met all formal registration criteria, the Court declared them null and void.

    Paradise Entertainment Files Appeal about Macau Court’s Decision

    Disagreeing with the Court’s reasoning, Paradise Entertainment has filed an appeal based on legal counsel. The company emphasized that safeguarding intellectual property is essential for innovation, business development, and maintaining confidence in the uniqueness of its products. While affirming its respect for the legal process, Paradise continues to assert the validity and significance of its patents within the industry.

    “We firmly believe that protecting intellectual property rights is essential for fostering innovation, securing business development, and instilling confidence in our clients and society regarding the reliability and uniqueness of our innovative products,” Paradise Entertainment explained. “While we respect the judicial process, we strongly disagree with this decision and remain committed to defending our intellectual property rights.”

    The Court also ordered the plaintiffs to cover the legal costs of the case. Observers suggest that the outcome of the appeal could influence how Macau’s courts approach gaming technology patent disputes in the future.

    What Was the Issue that Started All of This?

    Presiding Judge Chan Chi Weng ruled that the plaintiffs, Jay Chun, Natural Noble Limited, and LT Game Limited, had not met the necessary patent requirements in their attempt to enforce rights over two of their electronic table game (ETG) inventions. LT Game claimed that the defendants, Shuffle Master, had infringed on patents I/150 and I/380 through the use of their gaming machines, including “Rapid Baccarat” and “Rapid Table Game.” 

    LT Game also argued that its patents effectively granted the company exclusive control over the live dealer market for multi-game terminals across Macau. In its lawsuit against Shuffle Master, the company sought injunctions, the removal of infringing equipment, termination of relevant contracts, compensation for damages, and public disclosures related to the alleged patent infringements.

    Industry experts caution that the court’s ruling could have broader implications for future gaming technology patents in the region. The case has drawn attention to how Macau applies the concept of “inventive step” under its patent laws. Observers note that the decision may prompt companies to rethink their patent filing strategies and signal increased scrutiny of patent claims in gaming technology disputes.

    The legal battle comes just as Macau operators are preparing for Golden Week, which runs from September 29 and October 6, and is expected to bring a record-breaking income to the territory.

    [ad_2]

    Stefan Velikov

    Source link

  • Former stylist for Sean

    [ad_1]

    A former stylist for Sean “Diddy” Combs — who testified against the disgraced music mogul in his federal criminal trial earlier this year — filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing Combs of sexual abuse and violence while he was in Combs’ employ.

    The 37-page lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of Deonte Nash against Combs and Combs’ label, Bad Boy Entertainment, also accuses Combs of sexual battery, human trafficking and false imprisonment.

    According to the lawsuit, Nash said he was hired to be Combs’ stylist around 2008, at the age of 21, and worked for him until about 2018. Nash said that during that time period, he also worked as a stylist and creative director for Combs’ then-girlfriend, R&B singer Cassandra Ventura, who also accused Combs of sexual abuse in a 2023 lawsuit and gave graphic testimony against him in his trial.

    “Nash personally experienced sexual, physical, mental, and emotional abuse at the hands of Defendants during his ten-year employment,” including “forced tests of loyalty and manipulation, sexual harassment and sexual assaults, physical violence and manhandling, labor trafficking, threats of harm, and threats of death,” the lawsuit against Combs reads.

    The lawsuit alleges that Nash was sexually assaulted by Combs on “multiple occasions.”

    Nash said the alleged abuse prompted him to resign in 2018, but Combs “continued to threaten Mr. Nash after his employment ended.”

    CBS News has reached out to Combs’ attorneys for comment on the lawsuit.

    In one incident that Nash claims occurred in 2013 or 2014, Combs discovered that Nash and Ventura had gone out to dinner in L.A. without Combs’ permission. The following day, the lawsuit states, Combs “threw” Nash “onto the car and violently strangled him.”

    On another occasion in 2014, Combs and his security team allegedly entered Nash’s home without permission, during which they “confiscated Mr. Nash’s keys and phone while they forcibly searched the house” for Ventura, the lawsuit says.  

    “After enduring years of abuse, I finally found the courage during the criminal trial, and I am now ready to take action,” Nash said in a statement. “Sean Combs has never taken accountability for the years of harm he inflicted on me and so many others.”

    In July, following a lengthy trial, the 55-year-old Combs was found guilty of two counts of prostitution-related charges, but acquitted on more serious charges of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking. 

    He is scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 3.

    During the trial, Ventura testified that she was repeatedly physically and sexually abused by Combs over the course of their relationship. She testified about a 2016 incident, which was caught on surveillance video, that showed Combs violently assaulting her in the hallway of a California hotel.

    Nash also testified in the trial that Combs threatened Ventura and that he “would beat her.”

    Nash testified about a time when Combs allegedly grabbed a sleeping Ventura by the hair and started hitting her “pretty hard.” Nash said Ventura’s head hit a bed frame and started bleeding, and Combs then told her, Nash and an assistant, “Look what y’all made me do.”

    Nash testified he dialed 911 but was told to hang up. He said he feared retaliation but did tell some of Combs’ employees about the alleged abuse and told jurors Combs got physical with him a few times.

    During the trial, Combs’ attorneys denied the sexual abuse allegations brought by Ventura against their client, and argued that while evidence showed Combs may have lived a party lifestyle, they claimed he did not engage in racketeering conspiracy or sex trafficking.   

    Nash’s lawsuit seeks both compensatory and punitive damages and demands a jury trial. 

    Alice Gainer

    contributed to this report.

    Faris Tanyos

    Faris Tanyos is a news editor for CBSNews.com, where he writes and edits stories and tracks breaking news. He previously worked as a digital news producer at several local news stations up and down the West Coast.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • L.A. Attorney Fined $10K for Using ChatGPT in Legal Appeal

    [ad_1]

    A Los Angeles attorney used AI to improve his appeal, but he didn’t know ChatGPT would make up evidence in the process

    The Hall of Justice
    Credit: Courtesy Tupungato via Adobe Stock

    A Los Angeles attorney has been hit with a historic $10,000 fine after submitting an appeal containing information fabricated by ChatGPT. 

    This marks the largest fine ever issued in California over AI use so far.

    According to the opinion, the appeal contained evidence that was attributed to sources that either did not have the quotations or referred to cases that did not exist entirely. Additionally, of the 23 quotes from the case cited, 21 were found to be made up, according to the court opinion.

    “We therefore publish this opinion as a warning. Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations—whether provided by generative AI,” stated the document.

    Amir Mostafavi, the attorney fined last week, told the court that he had used ChatGPT to improve his appeal and did not read it over before submitting it in July 2023.  A three-judge panel fined him for frivolous appeal, violating court rules, citing fake cases, and for wasting the court’s time and taxpayer dollars. 

    “We therefore publish this opinion as a warning. Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations—whether provided by generative AI,” stated the document.

    Mostafavi told Calmatters that it is unrealistic to expect lawyers not to use AI. Comparing it to how online databases have replaced law libraries. 

    Scroll to continue reading

    “In the meantime we’re going to have some victims, we’re going to have some damages, we’re going to have some wreckages,” he said. “I hope this example will help others not fall into the hole. I’m paying the price.”

    California is not alone in having issues with AI in legal proceedings. There have been a number of other cases across the nation of attorneys and other legal professionals getting caught using AI. Like in New Jersey this week, where another attorney was hit with a $3000 fine for basically the same reason as here.

    [ad_2]

    Tara Nguyen

    Source link

  • American Airlines failed to divert 8-hour flight after California man suffered 2 strokes, jury finds

    [ad_1]

    A chef from California’s Central Coast who had two strokes while traveling internationally on American Airlines was awarded more than $9 million after a federal jury concluded employees failed to follow their own protocols to help him.

    In November 2021, Jesus Plasencia, a chef from Watsonville who was 67 at the time, was traveling with his wife, Ana Maria Marcela Tavantzis, on a flight to Madrid from Miami, according to a complaint they filed in federal civil court.

    While the plane was still at the gate, Plasencia suffered a “mini stroke” and temporarily lost the ability to speak or pick up his phone, according to the complaint. His wife alerted a flight attendant and the pilot but instead of alerting medical personnel and following company policy, the lawsuit said the pilot dismissed her concerns, “joked with Plasencia, and cleared him for take-off.”

    Plasencia then had a stroke while the plane was in the air; he was hospitalized after the plane landed in Spain and was in critical condition for more than three weeks before he went back to the U.S., according to court documents. He can’t speak or write and now “depends entirely on daily, significant, around-the-clock, in-home care and intensive rehabilitation,” according to the lawsuit.

    On Thursday, a federal jury in San Jose said American Airlines was on the hook for $9.6 million for its employees failing to follow company protocol in the incident.

    According to the complaint filed in 2023, the flight crew had asked other passengers to monitor Plasencia after he suffered a stroke during the flight, but didn’t tell the pilot about the medical emergency, so the flight wasn’t diverted.

    The couple argued that because American Airlines crew hadn’t followed protocols, Plasencia was delayed getting care for nearly eight hours and could’ve potentially had a better outcome, according to the lawsuit.

    “The safety and well-being of our passengers is our highest priority,” American Airlines said in a statement. “While we respect the jury’s decision, we disagree with the verdict and are currently evaluating next steps.”

    Darren Nicholson of Burns Charest, who represented the couple in the lawsuit, argued that the airline didn’t follow stroke protocol, which calls for immediate medical assistance and diverting the aircraft.

    “It is shocking that American Airlines responded so poorly to a medical emergency like this,” he said in a statement.

    American Airlines was found liable by the jurors under the Montreal Convention, an international treaty that governs international air travel.

    [ad_2]

    Summer Lin

    Source link

  • Woman who tried to sell Elvis Presley’s Graceland sentenced to over 4 years in federal prison

    [ad_1]

    A Missouri woman was sentenced Tuesday to more than four years in federal prison for scheming to defraud Elvis Presley’s family by trying to auction off his Graceland home and property before a judge halted the brazen foreclosure sale.

    U.S. District Judge John T. Fowlkes Jr. sentenced Lisa Jeanine Findley in federal court in Memphis to four years and nine months behind bars, plus an additional three years of probation. Findley, 54, declined to speak on her own behalf during the hearing.

    Findley pleaded guilty in February to a charge of mail fraud related to the scheme. She also had been indicted on a charge of aggravated identity theft, but that charge was dropped as part of a plea agreement.

    Findley, of Kimberling City, falsely claimed Lisa Marie Presley borrowed $3.8 million from a bogus private lender and had pledged Graceland as collateral for the loan before her death in January 2023, prosecutors said when Findley was charged in August 2024. Findley then threatened to sell Graceland to the highest bidder if Presley’s family didn’t pay a $2.85 million settlement, according to prosecutors.

    Findley posed as three different people allegedly involved with the fake lender, fabricated loan documents and published a fraudulent foreclosure notice in a Memphis newspaper announcing the auction of Graceland in May 2024, prosecutors said. A judge stopped the sale after Riley Keough, Lisa Marie’s daughter, sued. 

    Experts were baffled by the attempt to sell off one of the most storied pieces of real estate in the country using names, emails and documents that were quickly suspected to be phony.

    Graceland opened as a museum and tourist attraction in 1982 and draws hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. A large Presley-themed entertainment complex across the street from the museum is owned by Elvis Presley Enterprises. Presley died in August 1977 at the age of 42. Members of the Presley family, including Elvis, Lisa Marie and Benjamin Keough are buried on the property. 

    The public notice for the foreclosure sale of the 13-acre estate said Promenade Trust, which controls the Graceland museum, owed $3.8 million after failing to repay a 2018 loan. Keough inherited the trust and ownership of the home after her mother’s death.

    After the scheme fell apart, Findley tried to make it look like the person responsible was a Nigerian identity thief, prosecutors said. An email sent May 25, 2024, to the AP from the same email as the earlier statement said in Spanish that the foreclosure sale attempt was made by a Nigerian fraud ring that targets old and dead people in the U.S. and uses the internet to steal money.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • L.A. Taco journalist sues LAPD in latest allegation of police mistreatment of media

    [ad_1]

    A journalist for the website L.A. Taco filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department on Thursday, alleging officers have repeatedly interfered with his constitutional right to document sweeps of homeless encampments throughout the city.

    Lexis-Olivier Ray said officers and city sanitation employees have wrongfully threatened him with arrest — and in one instance actually placed him in handcuffs — as he tried to report on encampment sweeps in Skid Row and West L.A. between August and November of last year, according to the complaint.

    “I tried to resolve the issue outside of a courtroom. But instead of trying to come to an understanding, LAPD officers responded by arresting me and holding me in the back of a patrol car in handcuffs for nearly an hour, before releasing me without any charges,” Ray said in a statement. “At a time when the First Amendment is being threatened by people in power, and journalists are under attack, it’s more important than ever to reaffirm our rights to film police and government officials in public spaces without threats of arrest.”

    In some of the incidents, Ray had crossed yellow crime scene tape. But his attorney, Peter Bibring, argued the tape was put up by sanitation workers rather than police and none of the incidents were active crime scenes.

    City workers claimed Ray was interfering with their operations and in a “work zone,” but the suit contends other members of the public were able to walk through the area and he created no disruption.

    “LAPD consistently fails to get the basic point that the First Amendment forbids them from closing areas to the press unless its required for a specific and overriding concern,” Bibring said.

    Jennifer Forkish, the LAPD’s communications director, said that while she could not comment on pending litigation, the department “fully recognizes the rights of the press to cover public spaces and police activity.”

    “Our officers are trained to respect those rights while maintaining public safety,” she said.

    The city attorney’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The lawsuit comes at a time when LAPD’s treatment of the press has come under increasing scrutiny in courtrooms.

    Last week, a judge barred police and federal law enforcement from using less-lethal weapons on journalists after a spate of incidents in which reporters were hurt during summer protests against the Trump administration’s immigration raids. The city also recently settled two lawsuits filed by journalists who claimed they were injured or wrongfully arrested during protests.

    Ray’s lawsuit claims city workers singled him out.

    During one September incident, an officer approached Ray and told him “I know exactly who you are” before demanding he leave the area, according to the complaint. In another, he was observing a clean up behind the yellow tape when a sanitation worker purposefully obstructed his view and ordered him to move back while on a public sidewalk, the suit alleges.

    Last October, an LAPD officer handcuffed Ray on suspicion of interfering with a clean-up. Video from the scene that the reporter posted to X shows the clean-up work continuing uninterrupted even as an officer tells Ray they are going to “put him in cuffs.” Ray was never formally arrested or charged with a crime.

    This is not the first time the department has faced accusations of retaliation against Ray. In 2020, he was arrested for failure to disperse while covering chaotic celebrations that followed the Dodgers World Series victory. A 2021 Times investigation showed that Ray was the only person, among the hundreds in the streets that night, that the LAPD later sought to have charged with a crime.

    Ultimately, Ray was not charged in that incident.

    [ad_2]

    James Queally

    Source link

  • Starbucks workers in Colorado sue over company’s new dress code

    [ad_1]

    Starbucks workers in Colorado and two other states took legal action against the coffee giant Wednesday, saying it violated the law when it changed its dress code but refused to reimburse employees who had to buy new clothes.

    The employees, who are backed by the union organizing Starbucks’ workers, filed class-action lawsuits in state court in Illinois and Colorado. Workers also filed complaints with California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency. If the agency decides not to seek penalties against Starbucks, the workers intend to file a class-action lawsuit in California, according to the complaints.

    Starbucks didn’t comment directly on the lawsuits Wednesday, but the company said it simplified its dress code to deliver a more consistent experience to customers and give its employees clearer guidance.

    “As part of this change, and to ensure our partners were prepared, partners received two shirts at no cost,” the company said Wednesday. Starbucks refers to its employees as “partners.”

    Starbucks’ new dress code went into effect on May 12. It requires all workers in North America to wear a solid black shirt with short or long sleeves under their green aprons. Shirts may or may not have collars, but they must cover the midriff and armpits.

    Employees must wear khaki, black or blue denim bottoms without patterns or frayed hems or solid black dresses that are not more than 4 inches above the knee. The dress code also requires workers to wear black, gray, dark blue, brown, tan or white shoes made from a waterproof material. Socks and hosiery must be “subdued,” the company said.

    The dress code prohibits employees from having face tattoos or more than one facial piercing. Tongue piercings and “theatrical makeup” are also prohibited.

    Starbucks said in April that the new dress code would make employees’ green aprons stand out and create a sense of familiarity for customers. It comes as the company is trying to reestablish a warmer, more welcoming experience in its stores.

    Before the new dress code went into effect, Starbucks had a relatively lax policy. In 2016, it began allowing employees to wear patterned shirts in a wider variety of colors to give them more opportunities for self-expression.

    The old dress code was also loosely enforced, according to the Colorado lawsuit. But under the new dress code, employees who don’t comply aren’t allowed to start their shifts.

    Brooke Allen, a full-time student who also works at a Starbucks in Davis, California, said she was told by a manager in July that the Crocs she was wearing didn’t meet the new standards and she would have to wear different shoes if she wanted to work the following day. Allen had to go to three stores to find a compliant pair that cost her $60.09.

    Allen has spent an additional $86.95 on clothes for work, including black shirts and jeans.

    “I think it’s extremely tone deaf on the company’s part to expect their employees to completely redesign their wardrobe without any compensation,” Allen said. “A lot of us are already living paycheck to paycheck.”

    Allen said she misses the old dress code, which allowed her to express herself with colorful shirts and three facial piercings.

    “It looks sad now that everyone is wearing black,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Dee-Ann Durbin

    Source link

  • Trump sues New York Times for $15 billion for alleged

    [ad_1]

    President Trump is suing The New York Times for $15 billion for what he says in a post on his Truth Social platform is a yearslong pattern of “defamation and libel” by the paper against him.

    Mr. Trump claims in the post that the Times “has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW” and accuses the Times of “becoming a virtual ‘mouthpiece’ for the Radical Left Democrat Party.”

    He says the Times “has engaged in a decades long method of lying” about him, his family and the Trump Organization as well as “the America First Movement, MAGA, and our Nation as a whole.”

    Specifically, the 85-page lawsuit cites a book written by two Times reporters and three articles, all published during the 2024 presidential campaign.

    According to the suit, all were “carefully crafted … with actual malice, calculated to inflict maximum damage upon President Trump, and all published during the height of a Presidential Election.”   

    Defendants include the Times, reporters Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner, who wrote the book, and reporters Peter Baker and Michael Schmidt, who wrote the articles, along with Penguin Random House, the book’s publisher.

    “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success,” published in September 2024, was “false, malicious, and defamatory,” the suit asserts.

    The suit goes on to cite a Times article by Craig and Buettner previewing the book, and articles by Baker and Schmidt.

    It also mentions the Times’ endorsement of Kamala Harris for president, an endorsement the suit calls “deranged.” The Truth Social post says it was “actually put dead center on the front page of The New York Times, something heretofore UNHEARD OF!”

    The suit brings up settlements of other recent legal actions involving CBS News and Paramount, as well as ABC News.

    Mr. Trump also sued The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch for $10 billion in July over a story on his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

    CBS News has reached out to the Times and Penguin for comment.  

    The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Tampa, Florida.

    Brian Dakss

    Brian Dakss is a longtime New York-based editor and writer for CBS News, at the Radio network and with CBSNews.com. He has written and edited for NBC News, Dow Jones and numerous radio stations and been a radio anchor and reporter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Disability advocate says Uber drivers frequently refuse to pick him and his service dog up

    [ad_1]

    The Justice Department is suing Uber, accusing it of allegedly discriminating against passengers with disabilities. The rideshare company denies the claims. Ryan Honick, who is named in the lawsuit, joins CBS News to discuss his experience.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • SIGA Appeals $1.2M FINTRAC Fine

    [ad_1]

    The Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority (SIGA) has announced its intention to appeal a $1.175 million fine issued by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), asserting the issue involves administrative reporting and not financial crime.

    SIGA Denies Reasons for Fine

    FINTRAC is the federal agency responsible for monitoring and investigating financial transactions to help detect and prevent financial crimes such as money laundering and terrorist financing. It is Canada’s financial intelligence unit (FIU) and plays a key role in the country’s efforts to detect, prevent, and deter money laundering, terrorist financing, and other threats to the security of Canada.

    SIGA wrote in an official statement that it is important to note that this penalty relates solely to administrative reporting requirements and does not involve any allegations of money laundering, terrorist financing, or other financial crimes at SIGA’s properties. The Authority also reiterated that it works closely with a number of regulatory bodies in the course of its operations and places a strong emphasis on upholding and complying with regulatory standards.

    SIGA does not agree with the violations cited by FINTRAC, nor with the administrative penalty imposed. As a result, SIGA will be appealing both the findings and the penalty to the Federal Court.

    Why Was SIGA Fined?

    According to FINTRAC, SIGA was found to have committed several administrative violations, including: failing to submit suspicious transaction reports when there were reasonable grounds to suspect the transactions were linked to money laundering or terrorist financing; failing to include the required information in suspicious transaction reports; and failing to establish and maintain up-to-date written compliance policies and procedures, which, in the case of an organization, must also be approved by a senior officer.

    The penalty was issued on August 28 for non-compliance with Part 1 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and its related regulations. In a statement, Sarah Paquet, Director and CEO of FINTRAC, stated that Canada’s anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing Regime is designed to safeguard the safety of Canadians and the security of the country’s economy. She emphasized that FINTRAC collaborates with businesses to support their understanding and compliance with obligations under the Act, while also maintaining a firm stance on ensuring that businesses fulfill their responsibilities, taking appropriate action when necessary.

    [ad_2]

    Stefan Velikov

    Source link

  • Trump wants to end a half-century-old mandate on how companies report earnings | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump wants corporations to “no longer be forced” to report earnings every quarter.

    In a Truth Social post on Monday, he said companies should instead only be required to post earnings every six months, pending the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s approval. This change would break a quarterly reporting mandate that’s been in place since 1970. 

    “This will save money, and allow managers to focus on properly running their companies,” Trump wrote.

    Trump added that China has a “50 to 100 year view on management of a company,” as opposed to U.S. companies required to report four times in a fiscal year. China’s Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX) allows companies to submit voluntary quarterly financial disclosures, but only requires them to report their financial results twice a year.

    During his first term, Trump publicly asked the SEC on X, then still known as Twitter, to study shifting company disclosures from a quarterly to semiannual basis, stating business leaders felt less frequent reporting would allow for greater flexibility and long-term planning. 

    He told reporters at the time that he got the idea from CEOs.

    “It made sense to me because, you know, we are not thinking far enough out,” Trump said in 2018. “We’ve been accused of that for a long time, this country. So we’re looking at that very, very seriously.”

    No change came from the SEC.

    A revived debate

    “President Trump has revived an old idea emphasizing the costs of quarterly filings, the distraction from long-term goals, and how they reinforce Wall Street’s obsession with beating short-term expectations,” Usha Haley, a professor at the Barton School of Business at Wichita State University, told Fortune.

    For his part, SEC Chair Paul Atkins has explicitly called for more transparency as he’s taken control of the regulatory body this year.

    But companies keep pushing back. Last week, the San Francisco-based Long Term Stock Exchange said it planned to petition the SEC to end its quarterly reporting requirement. The exchange lists companies focused on long-term goals.

    Critics of the move argue that it might reduce transparency for investors.

    Chad Cummings, a CPA and attorney at Cummings & Cummings Law, told Fortune semiannual reporting enables companies to hide “red flags” like deteriorating cash flows or abrupt changes in auditor language, which can lead to unsavory practices like concealment of liquidity crises, accounting fraud, and whistleblower retaliation.

    “Removal of quarterly earnings sabotages valuation models and tilts power to insiders,” Cummings, who has active bar admissions in the U.S. Tax and Bankruptcy courts, added.

    SEC approval would face internal resistance, statutory barriers, and potential litigation, as the SEC’s investor protection mandate requires “reasonably current” disclosure, Cummings said.

    If regulators stopped requiring companies to report earnings every quarter without having clear legal authority, the decision could be challenged in court under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that governs how U.S. administrative agencies create regulations, he warned.

    Meanwhile, Haley also said Trump’s nod to China’s financial disclosure mandates misses the point.

    “The United States is not China,” she said. “Our markets derive their strength and global dominance through transparency, investor protections, and a long tradition of disclosures… Weakening those guardrails, while invoking efficiency risks, undermines investors’ confidence, the foundation of U.S. capital markets, which China does not have.”

    Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

    [ad_2]

    Nino Paoli

    Source link

  • Rolling Stone Publisher Sues Google Over AI Overview Summaries

    [ad_1]

    Google has insisted that its AI-generated search result overviews and summaries have not actually hurt traffic for publishers. The publishers disagree, and at least one is willing to go to court to prove the harm they claim Google has caused. Penske Media Corporation, the parent company of Rolling Stone and The Hollywood Reporter, sued Google on Friday over allegations that the search giant has used its work without permission to generate summaries and ultimately reduced traffic to its publications.

    Penske’s argument is pretty simple: by showing an AI-generated summary of an article at the top of the page via Google’s AI Overview panel, users have little reason to click through to read the full article, resulting in dwindling traffic finding its way to the publisher’s platforms, which it needs in order to monetize its content, either through ads or subscriptions. The search engine, the company argues, uses its monopoly over search to basically make publishers give up access to their content for next to nothing.

    Notably, Penske claims that in recent years, Google has basically given publishers no choice but to give up access to its content. The lawsuit claims that Google now only indexes a website, making it available to appear in search, if the publisher agrees to give Google permission to use that content for other purposes, like its AI summaries. If you think you lose traffic by not getting clickthroughs on Google, just imagine how bad it would be to not appear at all.

    A spokesperson for Google, unspurprisingly, said that the company doesn’t agree with the claims. “With AI Overviews, people find Search more helpful and use it more, creating new opportunities for content to be discovered. We will defend against these meritless claims.” Google Spokesperson Jose Castaneda told Reuters.

    That has basically been the company line since rumbles of traffic declines started getting louder. Last month, the company published a blog post in which it claimed that click volume from Google Search results to websites has been “relatively stable year-over-year”—notably without offering a definition for what “relatively stable” is. The company also made the case that “click quality” has increased, so people who do click through are spending more time on the sites they get sent to.

    That doesn’t match up with what publishers claim to be seeing. DMG Media, owner of the Daily Mail, claims click-through-rates by as much as 89% since AI Overviews were rolled out. A Wall Street Journal report from earlier this year said Business Insider, The Washington Post, and HuffPost have all reported traffic declines. Pew Research also found that people don’t click through nearly as often when an AI overview is available, finding that people who are served search results that don’t have an AI summary click through to an article nearly twice as often as those who see an AI-generated result.

    Just for kicks, if you ask Google Gemini if Google’s AI Overviews are resulting in less traffic for publishers, it says, “Yes, Google’s AI Overview in search results appears to be resulting in less traffic for many websites and publishers. While Google has stated that AI Overviews create new opportunities for content discovery, several studies and anecdotal reports from publishers suggest a negative impact on traffic.” It might be fun to ask Google, “Are you lying about AI Overview’s impact on traffic, or is your AI assistant providing false and unreliable information?”

    [ad_2]

    AJ Dellinger

    Source link

  • Shuffleboard club files lawsuit against Leesburg for donating land

    [ad_1]

    The Leesburg Shuffleboard Club has filed a lawsuit against the city of Leesburg for donating the land on which its shuffleboard courts were to a nonprofit to build tiny homes for youth in need.The decision was a controversial one, made in late August to donate the property to construct tiny homes for at-risk teens, displacing the shuffleboard club.Following the vote, the shuffleboard club sued the city, bringing on Lake County Commissioner Anthony Sabatini as legal representation.“It is disturbing that members of the Leesburg City Commission are giving away our public parks and taxpayer money to cram in more dense housing – it’s wrong, it’s illegal and it’s corrupt, since it was pushed by a commissioner to his wife’s nonprofit,” Sabatini said. “We need to be protecting all of our parks and recreational areas and stop the rampant growth.”Leesburg Commissioner Jimmy Burry is married to the executive director of the Forward Paths nonprofit.”We’re just looking to give them a start after facing abuse and neglect, a chance to start off life as an adult,” said the organization’s executive director, Denise Burry. Burry said they have been working to find a spot in Leesburg to build 10 tiny homes where these young people could live for free — similar to a project they have in Eustis.”We always have a waiting list, so we’re looking to accommodate the need here in Lake County,” she said.Leesburg declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing pending litigation.

    LEESBURG, Fla. —

    The Leesburg Shuffleboard Club has filed a lawsuit against the city of Leesburg for donating the land on which its shuffleboard courts were to a nonprofit to build tiny homes for youth in need.

    The decision was a controversial one, made in late August to donate the property to construct tiny homes for at-risk teens, displacing the shuffleboard club.

    Following the vote, the shuffleboard club sued the city, bringing on Lake County Commissioner Anthony Sabatini as legal representation.

    “It is disturbing that members of the Leesburg City Commission are giving away our public parks and taxpayer money to cram in more dense housing – it’s wrong, it’s illegal and it’s corrupt, since it was pushed by a commissioner to his wife’s nonprofit,” Sabatini said. “We need to be protecting all of our parks and recreational areas and stop the rampant growth.”

    Leesburg Commissioner Jimmy Burry is married to the executive director of the Forward Paths nonprofit.

    “We’re just looking to give them a start after facing abuse and neglect, a chance to start off life as an adult,” said the organization’s executive director, Denise Burry.

    Burry said they have been working to find a spot in Leesburg to build 10 tiny homes where these young people could live for free — similar to a project they have in Eustis.

    “We always have a waiting list, so we’re looking to accommodate the need here in Lake County,” she said.

    Leesburg declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing pending litigation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link