ReportWire

Tag: Lawsuits

  • Louisiana issues a warrant to arrest California doctor accused of mailing abortion pills

    [ad_1]

    BATON ROUGE, La. — Louisiana is pursuing a criminal case against another out-of-state doctor accused of mailing abortion pills to a patient in the state, court documents filed this month revealed.

    A warrant for the arrest of a California doctor is a rare charge of violating one of the state abortion bans that has taken effect since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and allowed enforcement.

    It represents an additional front in a growing legal battle between liberal and conservative states over prescribing abortion medications via telehealth and mailing them to patients.

    Pills are the most common way abortions are accessed in the U.S., and are a major reason that, despite the bans, abortion numbers rose last year, according to a report.

    Louisiana said in a court case filed Sept. 19 that it had issued a warrant for a California-based doctor who it says provided pills to a Louisiana woman in 2023.

    Both the woman, Rosalie Markezich, and the state attorney’s general, are seeking to be part of a lawsuit that seeks to order drug regulators to bar telehealth prescriptions to mifepristone, one of the two drugs usually used in combination for medication abortions.

    In court filings, Markezich says her boyfriend at the time used her email address to order drugs from Dr. Remy Coeytaux, a California physician, and sent her $150, which she forwarded to Coeytaux. She said she had no other contact with the doctor.

    She said she did not want to take the pills but felt forced to and said in the filing that “the trauma of my chemical abortion still haunts me” and that it would not have happened if telehealth prescriptions to the drug were off limits.

    The accusation builds on a position taken by anti-abortion groups: That allowing abortion pills to be prescribed by phone or video call and filled by mail opens the door to women being coerced to take them.

    “Rosalie is bravely representing many woman who are victimized by the illegal, immoral, and unethical conduct of these drug dealers,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement.

    Murrill’s office did not immediately answer questions about what charges Coeytaux faces, or when the warrant was issued. But under the state’s ban on abortions at all stages of pregnancy, physicians convicted of providing abortion face up to 15 years in prison and $200,000 in fines.

    Coeytaux is also the target of a lawsuit filed in July in federal court by a Texas man who says the doctor illegally provided his girlfriend with abortion pills.

    Coeytaux did not immediately respond to emails or a phone message.

    The combination of a Louisiana criminal case and a Texas civil case over abortion pills is also playing out surrounding a New York doctor, Margaret Carpenter. New York authorities are refusing to extradite Dr. Carpenter to Louisiana or to enforce for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton the $100,000 civil judgment against her.

    In the Louisiana case, officials said a pregnant minor’s mother requested the abortion medication online and directed her daughter to take them. The mother was arrested, pleaded not guilty and was released on bond.

    New York officials cite a law there that seeks to protect medical providers who prescribe abortion medications to patients in states with abortion bans — or where such prescriptions by telehealth violate the law.

    New York and California are among the eight states that have shield laws with such provisions, according to a tally by the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.

    The legal filings that revealed the Louisiana charge against Coeytaux are part of an effort for Louisiana, along with Florida and Texas, to join a lawsuit filed last year by the Republican attorneys general for Idaho, Kansas and Missouri to roll back federal approvals for mifepristone.

    This year, both Louisiana and Texas have adopted laws to target out-of-state providers of abortion pills.

    The Louisiana law lets patients who receive abortions sue providers and others. The Texas law goes further and allows anyone to sue those who prescribe such pills in the state.

    Both Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary have said they are conducting a full review of mifepristone’s safety and effectiveness.

    Medication abortion has been available in the U.S. since 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of mifepristone.

    ___

    Mulvihill reported from Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Women say birth control shot caused brain tumors—”it completely changed me”

    [ad_1]

    Contraception is often used to prevent pregnancies and manage menstrual cycles—which is exactly why Sandra Somarakis, now 61, and Nicole Ryan, 60, chose it for over a decade.

    Both women opted for medroxyprogesterone (a type of birth control injection) called Depo-Provera, owned by Pfizer, valuing the convenience of no periods and a quick doctor’s visit every three months.

    However, both Somarakis and Ryan later developed a type of benign brain tumor called meningioma and required surgery to remove it. While these tumors are not cancerous, both women have suffered long-term side effects.

    In January, researchers from the University of British Columbia’s Faculty of Medicine reported that women who used Depo-Provera for more than a year were roughly 3.5 times more likely to develop meningiomas compared with women using other forms of hormonal birth control.

    From Routine Exam to Life-Altering Diagnosis

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 24.5 percent of sexually active women have used the injectable contraceptive. Sandy began using Depo-Provera in 1996, until 2010.

    Somarakis, from Oregon, told Newsweek that, during a routine mammogram in July 2008, doctors urgently summoned her back when they noticed swelling in her left eye.

    “I thought my eye was watering and sore because of hay fever,” Somarakis said. “They sent me for an MRI, and an ophthalmologist called almost immediately: they’d found a tumor in my left eye socket.

    “Within days, I was diagnosed with a meningioma,” Somarakis added.

    The following year, the tumor was removed, and Somarakis continued to use the contraception.

    “I was never told that Depo-Provera might be linked to meningiomas,” Somarakis said. She added that, 16 months later, she started suffering from severe headaches, and another tumor was found. “The neurologist was shocked,” Somarakis said.

    In January 2010, she underwent surgery to remove her second tumor, followed by six weeks of radiation. She stopped using the injection after being told that radiation would leave her infertile.

    “Radiation was horrible,” Somarakis said. “It completely changed me. I had been a 911 operator and a project manager—sharp, fast, making good money.

    “It felt like my mind was wiped. My hair started falling out; I couldn’t swallow; and, for a time, I lived on yogurt and crushed crackers with milk.

    “Even now, I’m not the person I used to be. I’ve lost many cognitive skills, and I can no longer work in the kind of high-pressure jobs I once excelled at,” Somarakis said.

    “I have tinnitus and have lost the hearing in my left ear—I’ll need a hearing aid for the rest of my life. I still get terrible headaches; it feels like my frontal lobe is about to explode. My left eye is still watery, swollen, and sometimes it pops out slightly.”

    In 2024, both Somarakis and Ryan learned of an ongoing multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving lawsuits filed against Pfizer over Depo-Provera and its alleged link to an increased risk of meningioma brain tumors.

    “When you go through something like this as a healthy person, you wonder what you did to cause it,” Somarakis told Newsweek. “I was crushed when I found out.”

    Nicole Ryan’s Symptoms and Surgery

    Ryan, who lives in California, was diagnosed in 2014 after suffering from constant lightheadedness, near fainting spells and hearing loss in her left ear.

    “I wasn’t surprised, but I was relieved to finally have confirmation of what was causing all my symptoms,” Ryan said. “Although the surgery was successful, I was left with permanent side effects such as permanent ringing in my left ear, poor balance, and headaches where the tumor was taken out.”

    Legal Action and Claims Against Pfizer

    Newsweek also spoke to Ellen Relkin, an attorney who is currently representing hundreds of women who claim they developed meningioma from Depo-Provera. The plaintiffs are seeking financial compensation and litigation has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division.

    Relkin said: “Meningioma, the majority are ‘benign’ only in the sense that they do not metastasize to other organs. But it is in the brain and can grow.

    “The brain controls sight, cognitive abilities, hearing. Clients have lost vision, some have become blind, others lost hearing.”

    Relkin is a partner at Weitz & Luxenberg and chair of the firm’s Drug & Medical Device Litigation group. She has decades of experience representing thousands of plaintiffs in pharmaceutical, medical-device, and toxic-tort cases and has served in numerous court-appointed leadership roles.

    Relkin told Newsweek about the core legal arguments: “One is failure to warn. They never warned about this risk of meningioma or to be on the lookout for the symptoms. Many of our clients had excruciating headaches or dizziness for years, and no one connected it to the drug.

    “The second is safer alternative design. Depo-Provera is extremely high dose—150 milligrams. Pfizer got approval in 2004 for a lower-dose version, Depo-SubQ Provera—104 milligrams, which is equally effective. If you can give a lower dose that’s equally effective, why give more? The dose makes the poison.”

    In the plaintiffs’ latest filing on September 22, in response to Pfizer’s attempt to have the case dismissed on federal preemption grounds, they say that Pfizer “refused to study or warn” about the risk of meningiomas for decades despite growing scientific evidence.

    They add that when the company finally requested approval for a label change it “omitted crucial information and peer-reviewed studies,” failing to give the FDA the full picture of the dangers to patients.

    Lack of Warnings in the US

    Relkin claims there aren’t warnings about meningioma. She said: “Gynaecologists and clinics don’t tell patients because it’s not in the label.

    “When women get these symptoms, doctors assume it’s something common like migraine and don’t make the causal connection. Then they keep taking the drug as the tumor grows.”

    At minimum, Relkin added that the most-serious type of warning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issues—known as a black-box warning—should be applied.

    “A black box would be ideal because then everyone would know. They’ll say it’s rare, but it’s not so rare—thousands of women are impacted because the drug is so widely used,” Relkin said.

    Pfizer’s Response and Listed Side Effects

    The Pfizer label highlights the following possible serious side effects of the drug. However, Somarakis and Ryan said that they were only made aware of weight gain when they opted for the injection in the late 1990s and 2000s:

    • Bone loss
    • Breast cancer
    • Blood clots and stroke
    • Ectopic pregnancy
    • Severe allergic reactions: including serious eye problems or loss of vision
    • Other health effects: may trigger migraines, depression, seizures, or liver problems.

    A Pfizer spokesperson told Newsweek: “The Company stands behind the safety and efficacy of Depo-Provera, which has been used by millions of women worldwide and remains an important treatment option for women seeking to manage their reproductive health.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 79-year-old US citizen injured in Los Angeles immigration raid files $50M claim

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — A 79-year-old man in Southern California filed a claim against the federal government Thursday for $50 million in damages, saying federal agents violated his civil rights when they tackled him during a Sept. 9 immigration raid at a car wash business.

    Rafie Ollah Shouhed, the owner of a car wash in Los Angeles, suffered several broken ribs and chest trauma, elbow injuries, and has symptoms of a traumatic brain injury, according to the claim. Shouhed is a naturalized U.S citizen from Iran.

    Video surveillance footage from inside the car wash shows a federal officer running in through a hallway. The agent encounters Shouhed and knocks him to the ground before running past him. In footage from outside the car wash, Shouhed walks toward a federal officer who appears to be detaining one of his employees. Shouhed briefly grapples with a second officer, before a third officer runs in and tackles him to the ground.

    The claim was filed against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection.

    In a statement, a DHS spokesperson said authorities arrested five people from Guatemala and Mexico “who broke our nation’s immigration laws” from the car wash and that Shouhed “impeded the operation and was arrested for assaulting and impeding a federal officer.”

    Shouhed and his attorney V. James DeSimone denied the accusation at a press conference Thursday.

    “What can I do for you? Can I help you?” Shouhed recalled saying to the officers.

    He said he wanted to tell agents he had documents to show his employees were eligible to work. There is no audio on the surveillance footage.

    “This is the way ICE is operating in our community,” DeSimone said. “They use physical force, they don’t speak to the people in order to ascertain who is there legally in order to do their job. Instead, they immediately resort to force.”

    After Shouhed was detained, he said he showed an officer at the detention center his ID. He was held for 12 hours and released without charges, the claim says.

    The agency has six months to settle or deny the claim, after which Shouhed can file a lawsuit in federal court.

    Several other U.S. citizens have also filed civil rights claims against the government for being wrongly detained during federal immigrant enforcement operations in Southern California. They include Andrea Velez, who was detained June 24 on her way to work in downtown Los Angeles. She was held for two days and faced a charge for obstructing a federal officer that was eventually dropped.

    Federal immigration officers have also come under scrutiny for their aggressive tactics in raids. While DHS has usually defended its tactics, the agency issued a rare rebuke of one of its officers Friday after he shoved an Ecuadorian woman to the floor at a courthouse in New York.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Immigrants arrested during federal takeover of D.C. police are suing ICE and other federal agencies

    [ad_1]

    In August, President Donald Trump instituted a federal takeover of the D.C. police department after declaring a “crime emergency” in the city. Thousands of federal law enforcement officers and National Guard members were deployed, resulting in a surge of not only criminal arrests but also civil immigration arrests. Over 40 percent of the arrests made during Trump’s 30-day federal takeover of D.C. were immigration related, according to the Associated Press. Now, a lawsuit is challenging these arrests, saying that many of them violated federal law.

    The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by four plaintiffs and CASA, a national immigration rights organization, alleges that federal immigration officers did not follow proper procedures when making arrests during Trump’s D.C. crackdown. Although immigration agents are allowed to make an immigration arrest without a warrant, the officer must have “reason to believe” that the individual is in the U.S. in violation of any immigration law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. This “reason to believe” standard is considered equivalent to probable cause in immigration cases.

    Four of the five named plaintiffs in the case were arrested without a warrant, detained, and ultimately released on immigration charges during Trump’s federal takeover. In each instance, federal officers failed to either inquire about the plaintiff’s legal status or assess whether they were a flight risk, or both, before making an arrest. 

    One plaintiff, Jose Escobar Molina, was approached and immediately handcuffed by plainclothed unidentified federal agents outside of his apartment building on the morning of August 21, despite having a valid Temporary Protected Status for El Salvador since 2001 and living in D.C. for 25 years. The officers did not have a warrant and never asked for Escobar Molina’s name, identification, immigration status, or about his ties to the community—ties that are often used to assess whether someone is a flight risk. 

    According to the lawsuit, when he told the officers that he had legal immigration status, they replied, “No you don’t. You are illegal.” After being put into a vehicle, he pressed the issue again and told the officers he had “papers.” To which the driver responded by yelling, “Shut up, bitch! You’re illegal.” 

    After spending the night in immigration detention, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervisor realized that Escobar Molina did, in fact, have legal status, and he was finally released. 

    Another plaintiff, named only as “N.S.” in the suit, spent nearly four weeks in immigration detention before being released, despite having a pending asylum application after fleeing Venezuela. Federal agents arrested N.S. in a Home Depot parking lot without asking any questions about where he lived, for how long, or anything else about his ties to the community. Without making an individualized determination as to whether he posed a flight risk, federal officers “pulled N.S. out of the driver’s seat, threw him against the car, handcuffed him, and provided him a clear bag in which to place his belongings, before placing him in the back of a van,” according to the complaint. 

    Both men, along with the other plaintiffs arrested without a warrant, now live in fear of being arrested and detained again as immigration arrests continue in the nation’s capital.   

    In a post on X, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asserted that the lawsuit’s allegations are “disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE,” and defended DHS law enforcement’s use of “reasonable suspicion” to make arrests, rather than conducting “indiscriminate stops.” 

    But the issue at the heart of the complaint is not whether the officers had the “reasonable suspicion” to make the stops—stops that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote could be made by considering factors like race, ethnicity, and speaking Spanish—but whether officers had probable cause to make the warrantless arrests that followed. 

    “They’re not even doing the bare minimum as far as asking individual questions about a person’s immigration status,” CASA Legal Director Ama Frimpong, told The Washington Post. 

    Federal law requires immigration officers to have “reason to believe” an individual is both in violation of an immigration law and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. These measures are in place to protect individuals from wrongful arrest and detention. But clearly, laws meant to protect people’s rights are dispensable when standing in the way of Trump’s mass deportation goals. 

    [ad_2]

    Autumn Billings

    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

  • Arizona judge blocks Trump administration from deporting migrant Guatemalan and Honduran children

    [ad_1]

    TUCSON, Ariz. — A federal judge in Arizona on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from immediately deporting dozens of Guatemalan and Honduran children who came to the U.S. alone.

    U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez in Tucson granted a preliminary injunction, citing concerns about the steps the government had taken to prepare to deport the children.

    “The foundation of Defendants’ argument for their authority to transport Plaintiffs out of the United States is that Defendants are reuniting Plaintiff Children with parents abroad, but counsel could not identify a single instance of coordination between a parent and any government—American or Guatemalan,” she wrote.

    The ruling extends the protection for the children living in shelters or foster care after Márquez issued a temporary restraining order over Labor Day weekend. The order was meant to keep the children from being removed until at least Sept. 26.

    The lawsuit was filed by the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project on behalf of 57 Guatemalan children and another 12 from Honduras between the ages 3 and 17.

    The White House did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press requesting comment.

    This lawsuit and a related one in Washington were filed in response to the Trump administration’s work to quickly deport Guatemalan migrant children.

    Last month, the administration notified shelters — where migrant children traveling alone initially live after they cross the U.S.-Mexico border — that they were going to take them back to Guatemala and that they must be ready in a matter of hours. Many children got as far as boarding planes in Texas on the morning of Aug. 31 and were set to depart to Guatemala.

    The Arizona lawsuit is asking for the government to give the children the chance to present their cases and have access to legal counsel. It also wants the children placed in the least restrictive setting that is in their best interest.

    Meanwhile, the Trump administration has pushed back, saying it is trying to reunite the children with their families, which is in the kids’ best interest and at the behest of the Guatemalan government.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Woman sues Universal Orlando over injuries from same roller coaster in which man died after ride

    [ad_1]

    ORLANDO, Fla. — A woman has sued Universal Orlando Resort, claiming she was injured on a roller coaster at its newest theme park. The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, comes a week after a man died from blunt impact injuries after going on the same ride.

    Sandi Streets filed the negligence lawsuit in state court in Orlando, days after the death of 32-year-old Kevin Rodriguez Zavala in a separate incident.

    Streets said she was invited to Universal’s Epic Universe theme park just a few weeks before it officially opened to the public in May and went on the dual-launch coaster, which reaches speeds up to 62 mph (100 kph). On the ride, her head shook violently and slammed into her seat’s headrest, giving her permanent injuries, according to the lawsuit.

    The lawsuit says Streets has suffered disability, medical care expenses, loss of the ability to work and an exacerbation of a preexisting condition since going on the ride. Her attorney, Nicholas Spetsas, didn’t immediately respond Thursday to an email seeking further details on her injuries.

    The ride failed to properly restrain her head, and the theme park failed to adequately warn her of “the unsafe and unreasonably dangerous condition” of the roller coaster, the lawsuit says.

    Universal didn’t respond Thursday to an email seeking comment about the lawsuit.

    In Zavala’s case, the medical examiner for the Orlando area ruled the cause of death as multiple blunt impact injuries and said the manner of death was an accident.

    Karen Irwin, Universal Orlando Resort’s president, said in a note to workers last weekend, after Zavala’s death, that internal findings showed ride systems functioned normally, equipment was intact and Universal workers followed the proper procedures. Investigators with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services said last Friday that their initial findings align with that of the theme park.

    Lawyers for Zavala’s family took issue with that conclusion at a news conference Wednesday. Zavala had a spinal disability from birth and used a wheelchair, but they said his disability didn’t cause his death. His family hasn’t filed a lawsuit, as of yet, and said they want to understand how he died.

    ___

    Follow Mike Schneider on the social platform Bluesky: @mikeysid.bsky.social

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Amazon Might Owe You $51. Here’s How to Find Out if You’re Eligible

    [ad_1]

    Amazon customers with a Prime subscription will soon be able to make claims online for their share of the $1.5 billion the company is being ordered to pay to users in the United States.

    It’s all part of a recent settlement with the US Federal Trade Commission. Amazon now has to “provide $1.5 billion in refunds back to consumers harmed by their deceptive Prime enrollment practices,” according to a press release from the FTC. The total settlement with the FTC is $2.5 billion, which includes a $1 billion penalty owed to the government.

    “There was no admission of guilt in this settlement by the company or any executives,” says Alisa Carroll, an Amazon spokesperson, in an email sent to WIRED on Thursday after the decision was released. “The settlement largely requires us to maintain the sign-up and cancellation process that has been in place for several years—not to make additional changes.” She says Amazon will comply with the settlement’s decision.

    Who Gets the Amazon Cash?

    Those who are eligible to make a claim may eventually receive up to $51 in total. If you’re one of the millions of Amazon Prime members in the US, odds are you’re curious about whether you can get some of these Bezos bucks. Eligibility hinges on two broad factors, according to the court order filed on Thursday.

    First, the decision includes any US customers who signed up for Prime “through a Challenged Enrollment Flow” in the last six years—from June 23, 2019 to June 23, 2025, to be exact. What counts as a “challenged” sign-up process? The order says it’s “any version of the Universal Prime Decision Page, the Shipping Option Select Page, Prime Video enrollment flow, or the Single Page Checkout.”

    That’s quite extensive! Unless you went directly to the Prime subscription site to enroll, you very well may have encountered multiple nudges from Amazon during the process that fall under this “challenged” sign-up umbrella.

    The second group eligible to make a claim are Amazon Prime customers who started the process of canceling their subscription, but didn’t complete the cancellation. The ruling covers the same six-year time period. It includes users who became frustrated with the cancellation process and quit halfway through, as well as those who took a “Save Offer” that incentivized them to keep the membership for longer.

    Customers who fall into either of these two groups, having enrollment or cancellation issues, are eligible to make a claim. It’s not required for you to fit into both categories to get money from the settlement.

    What’s Next?

    Not everyone who’s eligible will need to submit a claim to get the cash. “Some consumers will receive automatic payments in the next 90 days,” says FTC spokesperson Christopher Bissex in an email sent to WIRED. “The rest of eligible consumers will receive a notification from Amazon, and will have the opportunity to submit a simple claim form.”

    Subscribers who used three or fewer of the benefits provided through Prime in a single year may receive the automatic payment, whereas more avid Prime users will need to make a claim. The specifics about what exactly counts as a single “benefit” remain vague.

    WIRED will update this article as more information becomes available and detail how impacted customers will be able to make their claim with Amazon. In previous instances, like the FTC’s Equifax settlement, many of those eligible made claims through a dedicated website.

    [ad_2]

    Reece Rogers

    Source link

  • Greenspan, Bernanke and Yellen urge Supreme Court to let Lisa Cook keep her job as a Fed governor

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen and other former top economic officials appointed by presidents of both parties urged the Supreme Court on Thursday to preserve the Federal Reserve’s political independence and allow Lisa Cook to remain as a central bank governor for now.

    The justices are weighing an emergency appeal from the administration to remove Cook while her lawsuit challenging her firing by Republican President Donald Trump proceeds through the courts.

    The White House campaign to unseat Cook marks an unprecedented bid to reshape the Fed board, which was designed to be largely independent from day-to-day politics. No president has fired a sitting Fed governor in the agency’s 112-year history.

    Earlier in September, a judge determined that Trump’s move to fire Cook probably was illegal. An appeals court rejected an emergency plea to oust Cook before the Fed’s meeting last week when Cook joined in a vote to cut a key interest rate by one-quarter of a percentage point.

    A day after that meeting, the administration turned to the Supreme Court and again asked for her prompt removal.

    In their filing, lawyers for the former economic officials wrote that immediately ousting Cook “would expose the Federal Reserve to political influences, thereby eroding public confidence in the Fed’s independence and jeopardizing the credibility and efficacy of U.S. monetary policy.”

    Greenspan, Bernanke and Yellen served as successive chairs of the Fed’s seven-member board of governors, spanning six presidential administrations back to 1987. Greenspan and Bernanke were initially appointed by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively. President Barack Obama, a Democrat, nominated Yellen to the Fed and she was Democratic President Joe Biden’s treasury secretary.

    The list of signatories includes other treasury secretaries, heads of the Council of Economic Advisers and former Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, a former chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.

    Trump sought to fire Cook on Aug. 25, but a judge ruled that she could remain in her job. Trump has accused Cook of mortgage fraud because she appeared to claim two properties, in Michigan and Georgia, as “primary residences” in June and July 2021, before she joined the board. Such claims can lead to a lower mortgage rate and a smaller down payment than if one of them was declared as a rental property or second home.

    Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime. According to documents obtained by The Associated Press, Cook did specify that her Atlanta condo would be a “vacation home,” according to a loan estimate she obtained in May 2021. In a form seeking a security clearance, she described it as a “2nd home.” Both documents appear to undercut the administration’s claims of fraud.

    The attempt to fire Cook differs from Trump’s dismissal of board members of other independent agencies. Those firings, including at the National Labor Relations Board, Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Product Safety Commission, have been done at will.

    In allowing those firings to proceed for now, the Supreme Court cautioned that it viewed the Fed differently. Trump has invoked the provision of the law that set up the Federal Reserve and allowed for governors to be dismissed “for cause.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal judge refuses to reinstate eight former inspectors general fired by Trump administration

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — A federal judge refused on Wednesday to reinstate eight former inspectors general who sued after the Trump administration fired them with no warning and little explanation.

    U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said that while President Donald Trump likely violated the federal law governing the process for removing the non-partisan watchdogs from office, but the firings didn’t cause enough irreparable harm to justify reinstating the watchdogs before the lawsuit is resolved.

    The eight plaintiffs were among 17 inspectors general who were fired by Trump on Jan. 24. Each received identical two-sentence emails from the White House that attributed their removal to unspecified “changing priorities.” The mass firings targeted all but two of the cabinet agencies’ inspectors general.

    Plaintiffs’ attorneys said the firings were unlawful because the administration didn’t give Congress the legally required 30-day notice or provide a “substantive, case-specific rationale” for removing them. Government attorneys said the president can remove IGs “ without any showing of cause ” and doesn’t have to wait 30 days after providing notice to Congress.

    The judge noted that even if the IGs were reinstated, Trump could simply give notice to Congress and have them removed from their positions 30 days later.

    ___

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Navajo man pleads guilty for illegal marijuana grow operations

    [ad_1]

    ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A Navajo man has pleaded guilty to 15 charges stemming from allegations that he ran illegal marijuana growing operations in New Mexico and on the Navajo Nation, smuggled pesticides into the U.S. and employed workers who were in the country illegally.

    Federal prosecutors announced the plea agreement Tuesday, saying Dineh Benally admitted to leading what they described as a vast cultivation and distribution ring that spanned several years, exploited workers and polluted the San Juan River on tribal lands.

    An indictment naming Benally, his father and a business partner was unsealed earlier this year after authorities raided farms in a rural area east of Albuquerque. The document said the enterprise involved the construction of more than 1,100 cannabis greenhouses, the solicitation of Chinese investors to bankroll the effort and the recruitment of Chinese workers to cultivate the crops.

    Benally, 48, first made headlines when his operations in northwestern New Mexico were raided by federal authorities in 2020. The Navajo Department of Justice sued him, leading to a court order halting those operations.

    A group of Chinese workers also sued Benally and his associates. The workers claimed they were lured to New Mexico and forced to work long hours trimming marijuana on the Navajo Nation, where growing the plant is illegal.

    Federal authorities said about 260,000 marijuana plants and 60,000 pounds of processed marijuana were confiscated from the operation in northern New Mexico while the subsequent raid at farms near Estancia uncovered about 8,500 pounds (3,855 kilograms) of marijuana, $35,000 in cash, illegal pesticides, methamphetamine, firearms and a bulletproof vest.

    Federal prosecutors said Benally faces a mandatory 15 years and up to life in prison when he’s sentenced.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hello, Bardi? This Is Shirley! Unbothered & Unserious Cardi B Seemingly Reacts To Stefon Diggs Paternity Suit

    [ad_1]

    Cardi B‘s romantic life has a new chapter, and it’s full of questions regarding Stefon Diggs‘ paternity suits and legal filings. As the couple prepares to welcome their first child together, the NFL player is facing a lawsuit to determine if he is the father of a five-month-old daughter.

    Source: Elsa / Getty

    As BOSSIP previously reported, Cardi B and Stefon Diggs have had a very public relationship, with the couple going Instagram official just a few months ago. In Cardi’s comments, Stefon praised his pregnant girlfriend while publicly proclaiming that he’s “team boy” and thinking of Spanish names. Cardi also responded, praising Stefon for motivating her with his work ethic. Their public display of affection came just days after Cardi B announced her pregnancy, which will be her fourth child, and Diggs’ second.

    However, shortly after the happy news, rumors began circulating that Diggs has other children. A video, which was obtained by TMZ, showed the NFL player leaving a hospital with a baby carrier, allegedly taken shortly after he confirmed his relationship with Cardi. The video sparked questions from fans and led to further speculation about the timeline of Diggs’ personal life.

    Stefon Diggs’ Paternity: Two Babies, One Lawsuit

    The speculation was quickly followed by a paternity lawsuit filed by model Aileen Lopera, also known as Lord Gisselle, who accused the NFL star of fathering her five-month-old daughter, Charliee, born in April 2025. According to legal documents obtained by Page Six, Lopera filed a petition in Los Angeles County Superior Court on August 30, seeking to establish Diggs as the legal father of her daughter. Lopera is requesting full legal and physical custody of the child, as well as an order for Diggs to cover all pregnancy and birth-related expenses and attorney fees.

    In response, Stefon Diggs has requested a genetic test to confirm his paternity. Diggs has not commented publicly on the paternity suit, but in his filing, he acknowledged his uncertainty about his biological connection to the infant but stated that, “should paternity be established, he plans to pursue shared custody.” He is also asking that both he and Lopera be held responsible for parenting-related and legal expenses, according to Complex.

    Lopera’s attorney, Tamar G. Arminak, told Page Six, “My client looks forward to the day Mr. Diggs finally meets, acknowledges, and provides for his infant daughter in Los Angeles”

    While Diggs has remained quiet on the situation, Cardi B is taking the rumors in stride. In a video, which appears to be taken from an Instagram Live, the “Bodega Baddie” mocked the women expressing concern for her. “Hello Barbara? This is Shirley,” she says. “That’s your baby daddy, b***h? That’s my baby daddy, too. What now? I don’t f*****g know. We’ll figure it out, b***h.”

    The paternity suit and the baby carrier video have certainly added a layer of complexity to Stefon Diggs’ personal life, but it seems Cardi B is unfazed by the drama.

    What do you think about Cardi B’s comedy amid Stefon Diggs’ baby daddy drama? Let us know in the comments!

    [ad_2]

    Kerbi Lynn

    Source link

  • How a fight over voter data could reshape American elections

    [ad_1]

    America’s electoral system has always been subject to—by design—a shifting balance of local control, state authority, and federal oversight. That balance is once again under strain, this time in the form of a pair of federal lawsuits that could redefine who ultimately controls access to voters’ personal data. Last week, the Justice Department filed twin lawsuits against Maine and Oregon, arguing that the states violated federal election laws and the Civil Rights Act by refusing to give the agency full access to the states’ voter data.

    Since May, the Justice Department has sent letters to at least 32 states requesting access to their voter registration databases, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. In early August, the agency followed up with a more specific demand for full electronic copies of those files—including names, addresses, dates of birth, and sensitive identifiers such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers—along with documentation of how states identify and remove ineligible voters.

    While the Justice Department has requested information from states about election administration in the past—including during the first Trump administration—the scope of the request is unprecedented, per the Brennan Center. Most states have not complied, and those that have appear to have provided only the publicly available portions of their voter files, which vary by state but may include information such as voter names, addresses, party affiliation, and voting history.

    The Justice Department’s requests have raised privacy concerns from state officials, including Washington Democratic Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, who “fears the information would be shared with the Department of Homeland Security to fuel the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown,” reports the Washington State Standard. The Brennan Center notes that the Justice Department’s demands could conflict with the Privacy Act, which restricts how federal agencies collect and share personally identifiable information, especially when such data are not explicitly authorized for disclosure.

    Despite the broad lack of participation from the states, only Maine and Oregon have been sued so far. “States simply cannot pick and choose which federal laws they will comply with, including our voting laws, which ensure that all American citizens have equal access to the ballot in federal elections,” said Harmeet K. Dhillon, an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, in a press release.

    Maine Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows has called the Justice Department’s actions “absurd” and a “federal abuse of power,” according to CNN. Oregon Democratic Secretary of State Tobias Read criticized President Donald Trump in a statement, saying, “If the President wants to use the [Justice Department] to go after his political opponents and undermine our elections, I look forward to seeing them in court.” Read also maintains that the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to pursue legal action on these grounds, according to the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

    In the U.S., elections—and the voter data that underpin them—are managed primarily by state and local governments, not federal agencies. However, since being reelected, Trump has sought to increase the federal government’s role in national elections. In March, the president signed an executive order directing federal agencies to enforce stricter eligibility verification, tighten mail‑in voting rules, and enhance data sharing between federal and state authorities regarding voter registration and citizenship status.

    In August, Trump pledged to end mail-in voting throughout the country, save for extenuating circumstances, stating that the practice can lead to dishonest elections. Many experts argue that concerns about widespread fraud are overstated, and Oregon Public Broadcasting notes that there were just 38 criminal convictions of voter fraud out of 61 million ballots cast statewide from 2000 to 2019.

    The cases could set a precedent for how far federal authorities can reach into state election systems. If the Justice Department prevails, more states may be forced to share complete voter data—including sensitive identifiers—to federal agencies, giving the government even more access to citizens’ private information. If the courts side with Oregon and Maine, it may affirm states’ ability to limit access in defense of voter privacy.

    [ad_2]

    Jacob R. Swartz

    Source link

  • Connecticut settles lawsuit over convict’s killing of visiting nurse for $2 million

    [ad_1]

    HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut officials have agreed to a $2.25 million settlement of a lawsuit over a sex offender’s killing of visiting nurse Joyce Grayson at a halfway house in 2023 — a case that reignited calls for better protections for home health care workers across the country.

    A state judge in Hartford approved the settlement on Thursday in the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Grayson’s husband. Meanwhile, settlement talks with other defendants in the lawsuit, including Grayson’s employer, are continuing, said Kelly Reardon, a lawyer for Grayson’s family.

    Grayson, a 63-year-old mother of six and a nurse for 36 years, had gone to the halfway house in Willimantic on Oct. 28, 2023, to administer medication to Michael Reese, who was living there while on probation and after serving prison time for stabbing and sexually assaulting another woman in 2006.

    Police found Grayson dead in the basement of the home later the same day. The medical examiner’s office said she died of compression of the neck and had blunt force injuries. Reese pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced last month to 50 years in prison.

    The lawsuit alleged state officials failed to properly supervise Reese during his probation, failed to ensure the public was protected from him, failed to detain him when he violated his probation, failed to provide him adequate mental health and drug programs and allowed him to be alone with visiting nurses despite his violent past. The lawsuit blamed the Department of Correction and probation oversight run by the Judicial Branch.

    “The family hopes that this settlement demonstrates that the state is taking its involvement with the perpetrator of this horrific crime against Joyce Grayson seriously,” Reardon said. “Along those lines, as part of the settlement, family members will be meeting with representatives of some of the involved state agencies to discuss ways that these types of crimes can be prevented in the future.”

    The Connecticut attorney general’s office, which represented the state in the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to an e-mailed request for comment Tuesday. In the settlement agreement, the state does not admit to any wrongdoing.

    Grayson’s husband, Ronald Grayson, also sued his wife’s employer, Dallas, Texas-based Elara Caring, and affiliated companies, alleging they repeatedly ignored workers’ safety concerns about treating dangerous patients.

    Elara Caring has called the allegations “unwarranted” and said Connecticut officials were responsible for monitoring and managing Reese’s activities after determining he was not a danger to the community and releasing him to a halfway house. An Elara spokesperson did not immediately return an email seeking comment Tuesday.

    Grayson’s death spurred Connecticut legislators last year to approve a new law aimed at improving safety for home health care workers, including providing grants to employers to fund emergency alert buttons, buddy escort systems, tracking devices and safety training.

    The killing also drew comments and social media posts from industry and worker groups across the country, expressing shock and sadness and calling for greater protections for health care workers from increasing violence.

    In a national survey of nearly 1,000 nurses released last year by the National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the U.S., more than 80% responded that they had experienced at least one type of workplace violence in 2023. Nearly half of them reported an increase in workplace violence over the previous year.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge blocks USDA from collecting data about SNAP applicants in 21 states

    [ad_1]

    A judge has temporarily barred the federal government from collecting personal information about residents enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in 21 states and Washington, D.C.

    U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney in California issued the temporary restraining order against the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Thursday, and said a hearing would be held next month to determine if a longer-term prohibition is necessary.

    Chesney found that states were likely to succeed in their argument that the personal data can only be used for things like administering the food assistance program, and that it generally can’t be shared with other entities. The states said they feared that the data would be used to aid mass deportation efforts.

    The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is a social safety net that serves more than 42 million people nationwide. Under the program formerly known as food stamps, the federal government pays 100% of the food benefits, while the states determine who is eligible for the benefits and then issue them to enrollees.

    The Trump administration has worked to collect data on millions of U.S. residents through various federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, sharing the information with the Department of Homeland Security to support deportation efforts. The USDA warned states in July that if they failed to turn over the information about people enrolled in the federal food assistance program, SNAP funding would be cut off.

    In response, the coalition of states sued, saying they feared the data would be used to aid mass deportations. They told the judge that the federal SNAP Act requires states to safeguard the information they receive from SNAP applicants, only releasing it for limited purposes related to administering or enforcing the food assistance program.

    In Thursday’s ruling, Chesney said the states’ argument was likely to succeed, and that the USDA had already announced it planned to share the data with other entities and use it for purposes not allowed by the SNAP Act.

    President Donald Trump signed an executive order on March 20 directing agencies to ensure “unfettered access to comprehensive data from all state programs” as part of the administration’s effort to stop “ waste, fraud and abuse by eliminating information silos.”

    The case is at least the second lawsuit filed over the USDA’s attempt to collect SNAP information. Privacy and hunger relief groups and a handful of people receiving food assistance benefits filed a similar lawsuit in Washington, D.C., in May, but the federal judge in that case declined to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the data collection.

    Some states have already turned over the data. ___ Associated Press reporter Kimberly Kindy contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • North Carolina judge orders $50M payment for helicopter crash death

    [ad_1]

    CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A North Carolina judge has ordered $50 million be paid to the family of a Charlotte TV station meteorologist who was killed in a helicopter crash three years ago after finding the companies that owned and operated the aircraft liable in his widow’s wrongful death lawsuit.

    Following an evidentiary hearing earlier in the week, state Superior Court Judge Forrest Bridges issued a judgment order Thursday directing insurers for the Total Traffic & Weather Network, iHeartCommunications, and iHeartMedia to make the payment within the next two months.

    WBTV meteorologist Jason Myers and pilot Chip Tayag died in November 2022 after the Robinson R44 helicopter crashed along a Charlotte-area interstate. The flight’s purpose was to provide Myers video training over a simulated news scene, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.

    Jillian Myers initially sued the companies and a maintenance facility in March 2023 for the death of her 41-year-old husband, with whom they had four children. The maintenance facility was later removed as a defendant.

    A National Transportation Safety Board report last year determined the probable cause of the crash was inadequate inspections, resulting in an eventual loosening of hardware and subsequent loss of helicopter control. A post-crash examination of the flight controls showed hardware that should have been connected to a part on the main rotor was disconnected and the connecting hardware was missing, the final NTSB report says.

    Thursday’s order from Bridges said the plaintiffs’ experts confirmed and expanded upon the NTSB finding that the crash was “was due to operational and maintenance errors committed by” the remaining defendants.

    The judgment entered for Jillian Myers was actually $126.3 million against the defendants — a $105 million total agreed upon by attorneys on both sides of the case and that Bridges found was a fair and reasonable settlement valuation — along with accrued interest.

    But by agreement the defendants’ primary insurers will pay $50 million. Jillian Myers now will be able to seek the rest of the amount against the companies’ excess or umbrella insurance carriers, her attorney Gary C. Robb said on Friday. Those carriers recently told the defendants they were declining their additional layers of coverage for the wrongful death claims, Thursday order says.

    Total Traffic & Weather Network and iHeartCommunications are subsidiaries of iHeartMedia. Wendy Goldberg, an iHeartMedia spokesperson, declined to comment on Friday.

    Myers was raised in North Carolina and worked in the city of Raleigh, and in Texas and Virginia before returning to the Charlotte area where he grew up, WBTV said at the time of his death.

    “This settlement does not bring back the man we lost, but it does represent a formal acknowledgment of the profound impact his death has had on our family,” Jillian Myers said in a news release.

    Tayag, a pilot for more than 20 years, worked for the Total Traffic & Weather Network. Police praised him for avoiding a crash on Interstate 77, thus saving the lives of drivers.

    Robb said Friday that Myers’ family had hoped the lawsuit would prompt improved operations and maintenance of helicopters used by television and weather operations, and ultimately save lives. That is already happening, he said.

    “We believe the industry got the message,” he said in an interview.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 3 members of federal control board in Puerto Rico sue Trump and others for illegal firings

    [ad_1]

    SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Three members of a federal control board overseeing Puerto Rico’s finances, who were recently fired by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, filed a lawsuit in federal court on Thursday alleging their firings were illegal.

    The lawsuit was filed against Trump; Sergio Gor, director of the White House personnel office; John E. Nixon, the lone remaining board member; and Robert F. Mujica, the board’s executive director.

    Attorneys said that Arthur J. Gonzalez, Andrew G. Biggs and Betty A. Rosa were unlawfully removed from the board and asked that a judge reinstate them.

    “This is a case about power over the board and over Puerto Rico,” said Eduardo Santacana, an attorney with Cooley LLP, a law firm that is helping with the case. “The president is attempting to exert a lot of power here that he does not have.”

    The lawsuit revealed more details about the abrupt dismissals last month, including that the deputy director of the U.S. presidential personnel office sent Gonzalez and Rosa a two-sentence email on Aug. 1 notifying them that they had been removed. Gonzalez was board chairman at the time.

    Nearly two weeks later, Biggs received the same message.

    “Neither email articulated any ‘cause’ or provided any other justification for the removals,” the lawsuit stated. “Those purported removals were unlawful.”

    Attorneys argue that Trump does not have inherent authority to terminate Gonzalez, Biggs or Rosa because they are not officers of the U.S. within the executive branch.

    The lawsuit noted that when Congress approved an act in 2016 known as Promesa, it created the financial oversight and management board within Puerto Rico’s territorial government.

    “The stakes of this case could not be higher: If the President can violate the laws that Congress passed establishing local governments in the territories, he could remove any territorial officer tomorrow. On that theory, he may also be able to remove officers from the District of Columbia,” the lawsuit stated.

    It also stated that if any board member is removed “for cause,” they have a right to notice and a hearing, which neither Gonzalez, Biggs nor Rosa received.

    Overall, six board members have been fired by the Trump administration, including Cameron McKenzie, Juan Sabater and Luis Ubiñas. They were not named in Thursday’s lawsuit.

    Four of the six dismissed members are Democrats, while Nixon, who remains on the board, is a Republican.

    Gonzalez is a retired bankruptcy judge; Rosa is the commissioner of the New York State Education Department and president of the University of the State of New York; and Biggs a Social Security reform expert.

    The board was overseeing a bankruptcy-like process after Puerto Rico announced in 2015 that it was unable to pay its more than $70 billion public debt load and then filed for the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history in 2017.

    Until recently, the board was struggling to reach a debt-restructuring agreement with bondholders on the more than $9 billion in debt held by Puerto Rico’s Electric Power Authority.

    The board had insisted on a $2.6 billion payment before the dismissals of its six members.

    The removals sparked concern given that experts believe Trump will appoint new members who might favor paying the full $8.5 billion that bondholders are demanding.

    The board is supposed to have seven members, six of whom can be appointed by the U.S. president with the Senate’s advice and consent. They serve for three years and can be removed only for cause.

    [ad_2]

    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

  • Judge dismisses Indigenous Amazon tribe’s lawsuit against The New York Times and TMZ

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — A California judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by an Indigenous tribe in the Brazilian Amazon against The New York Times and TMZ that claimed the newspaper’s reporting on the tribe’s first exposure to the internet led to its members being widely portrayed as technology-addled and addicted to pornography.

    The suit was filed in May by the Marubo Tribe of the Javari Valley, a sovereign community of about 2,000 people in the Amazon rainforest.

    Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Tiana J. Murillo on Tuesday sided with the Times, whose lawyers argued in a hearing Monday that its coverage last year was fair and protected by free speech.

    TMZ argued that its coverage, which followed the Times’ initial reporting, addressed ongoing public controversies and matters of public interest.

    The suit claimed stories by TMZ and Yahoo amplified and sensationalized the Times’ reporting and smeared the tribe in the process. Yahoo was dismissed as a defendant earlier this month.

    Murillo wrote in her ruling that though some may “reasonably perceive” the Times’ and TMZ’s reporting as “insensitive, disparaging or reflecting a lack of respect, the Court need not, and does not, determine which of these characterizations is most apt.”

    The judge added that “regardless of tone, TMZ’s segment contributed to existing debate over the effects of internet connectivity on remote Indigenous communities.”

    “We are pleased by the comprehensive and careful analysis undertaken by the court in dismissing this frivolous lawsuit,” Danielle Rhoades Ha, a spokesperson for the Times, said in a statement Wednesday to The Associated Press. “Our reporter traveled to the Amazon and provided a nuanced account of tension that arose when modern technology came to an isolated community.”

    Attorneys for TMZ did not immediately respond to an email request for comment Wednesday.

    Plaintiffs in the lawsuit included the tribe, community leader Enoque Marubo and Brazilian journalist and sociologist Flora Dutra, who were both mentioned in the June 2024 story. Both were instrumental in bringing the tribe the internet connection, which they said has had many positive effects including facilitating emergency medicine and the education of children.

    N. Micheli Quadros, the attorney who represents the tribe, Marubo and Dutra, wrote to the AP Wednesday that the judge’s decision “highlights the imbalance of our legal system,” which “often shields powerful institutions while leaving vulnerable individuals, such as Indigenous communities without meaningful recourse.”

    Quadros said the plaintiffs will decide their next steps in the coming days, whether that is through courts in California or international human rights bodies.

    “This case is bigger than one courtroom or one ruling,” Quadros wrote. “It is about accountability, fairness, and the urgent need to protect communities that have historically been silenced or marginalized.”

    The lawsuit sought at least $180 million, including both general and punitive damages, from each of the defendants.

    The suit argued that the Times’ story by reporter Jack Nicas on how the group was handling the introduction of internet service via Starlink satellites operated by Elon Musk’s SpaceX “portrayed the Marubo people as a community unable to handle basic exposure to the internet, highlighting allegations that their youth had become consumed by pornography.”

    The court disagreed with the tribe’s claims that the Times article falsely implied its youth were “addicted to pornography,” noting that the coverage only mentioned unidentified young men had access to porn and did not state that the tribe as a whole was addicted to pornography.

    Nicas reported that in less than a year of Starlink access, the tribe was dealing with the same struggles the rest of the world has dealt with for years due to the pervasive effects of the internet. The challenges ranged from “teenagers glued to phones; group chats full of gossip; addictive social networks; online strangers; violent video games; scams; misinformation; and minors watching pornography,” Nicas wrote.

    He also wrote that a tribal leader said young men were sharing explicit videos in group chats. The piece doesn’t mention porn elsewhere, but other outlets amplified that aspect of the story. TMZ posted a story with the headline, “Elon Musk’s Starlink Hookup Leaves A Remote Tribe Addicted To Porn.”

    The Times published a follow-up story in response to misperceptions brought on by other outlets in which Nicas wrote: “The Marubo people are not addicted to pornography. There was no hint of this in the forest, and there was no suggestion of it in The New York Times’s article.”

    Nicas wrote that he spent a week with the Marubo tribe. The lawsuit claimed that while he was invited for a week, he spent less than 48 hours in the village, “barely enough time to observe, understand, or respectfully engage with the community.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Homeowner, 84, sues Bad Bunny over use of iconic house in video and residency

    [ad_1]

    SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — An 84-year-old man whose home in southeast Puerto Rico served as inspiration for the house that became an iconic symbol at Bad Bunny’s residency this summer sued the superstar on Wednesday.

    Román Carrasco Delgado, an unemployed widower, is seeking at least $1 million in damages and emotional distress. The lawsuit alleges that “a large number of people” visit his home daily in the coastal town of Humacao to take pictures and videos, stripping him of his privacy.

    “La Casita has been the subject of dozens or hundreds of social media posts and product sales featuring his property, from which he generally receives no benefit,” the lawsuit states. “On the contrary, Don Román is the subject of malicious comments and insinuations that did not occur prior to the publication of the aforementioned video.”

    The salmon-colored home with yellow trim and a wraparound porch was featured in Bad Bunny’s short film that launched his “Debí Tirar Más Fotos” album in January. It also served as the model for a real-size home nicknamed “la casita” that was featured at the singer’s 30 concerts where celebrities and musicians ranging from LeBron James and Penélope Cruz to Residente and Belinda hung out and sang alongside the rap star.

    “There’s no doubt that La Casita has been the main stage for Bad Bunny concerts, where a host of world-class artists have performed,” the lawsuit states.

    The lawsuit also accuses Bad Bunny and three companies — Rimas Entertainment LLC; Move Concerts PR INC; and A1 Productions, LLC — of illicit enrichment.

    Representatives for Bad Bunny did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

    Carrasco told The Associated Press by phone that he came up with the design of the house after his wife said she wanted to return to her hometown of Humacao. He had never built a home, but he got help from his father and his brother, both carpenters.

    “I saw her in my mind…and my brother began to doodle,” he said.

    The home has three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a wide, wrap-around porch.

    “A house without a porch is not feasible,” he said, adding that it’s the perfect place to visit with friends and tell them, “pull up a chair, sit down and let’s talk here.”

    Carrasco said a porch is most comfortable if it’s hot and there’s a small hammock hanging nearby.

    It took him and his family about four or five years to build.

    “We went block by block. That takes time,” he said.

    When asked if it was a surprise for his wife, he laughed: “She was helping.”

    The lawsuit notes that Carrasco authorized a scout to use the house in the video, “although he had no detailed knowledge of the form and manner in which the Casita would be used.”

    It also says that Carrasco never received a formal or informal proposal from the scout nor details about the video.

    The lawsuit states that Carrasco doesn’t know how to read or write but is able to sign his name and accused officials of asking him to sign a white screen on a cell phone.

    “These officials fraudulently digitally transferred the aforementioned signature to two different contracts. Initially, these contracts were not delivered to Don Román, nor were their contents explained to him or read to him. The plaintiff was also unable to read them because he lacks such ability,” the lawsuit states, alleging that as result, it voids the contracts.

    It notes that Carrasco received two checks totaling $5,200 while the video featuring his home that he and his brother designed and built in the 1960s received 22 million views.

    The lawsuit states that while filming the video at Carrasco’s home, people began to take pictures of it as well as measurements.

    “In grave disregard for Don Román’s interests, and without his permission, the co-defendants used the measurements and photos taken of Don Román’s Casita to construct an exact copy of it inside the José Miguel Agrelot Coliseum of Puerto Rico, to be used in Bad Bunny’s concert series…” the lawsuit reads.

    The suit was filed in the Court of First Instance in San Juan, Puerto Rico’s capital.

    [ad_2]

    Source link