|
|
|
Black LA firefighter awarded $1.1m in bias lawsuit
Legal Center |
2013/12/02 12:35
|
Six years after losing in his first trial, a black Los Angeles firefighter was awarded $1.1 million Monday by a jury that found he suffered discrimination during his nearly three-decade career.
After 16 days of deliberations and a seven-week trial, the jurors found in favor of Jabari S. Jumaane in a lawsuit alleging a pattern of discrimination, harassment and retaliation in the Los Angeles Fire Department.
Jumaane alleged that he was subjected to racial slurs and jokes and that his supervisors falsified his performance evaluations, leading to suspensions and reprimands.
"We are grateful to the jury for this historic verdict which clearly indicts the department and the city for its systemic discrimination and retaliation against black fire members which it has condoned and perpetuated for decades," Jumaane's attorney Nana Gyamfi said in a statement.
Jumaane said he was grateful the jury was able to render the only reasonable verdict.
Attorneys for the city argued that Jumaane's poor performance evaluations were justified, and his harassment allegations were false.
Rob Wilcox, a spokesman for City Attorney Mike Feuer, said the city hasn't yet chosen its next move. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amanda Knox appeals slander case to European court
Legal Center |
2013/11/29 10:05
|
Lawyers for Amanda Knox filed an appeal of her slander conviction in Italy with the European Court of Human Rights, as her third murder trial was underway in Florence.
The slander conviction was based on statements Knox made to police in November 2007 when she was being questioned about the slaying of her British roommate, Meredith Kercher, in the house they shared in Perugia.
Knox says she was coerced into making false statements blaming the slaying on bar owner Patrick Lumumba.
"The interrogation took place in a language I barely spoke, without a lawyer present, and without the police informing me that I was a suspect in Meredith's murder, which was a violation of my human rights," Knox said in a statement released Monday as the appeal was filed.
Knox was convicted of slander at her first trial in December 2009. That conviction was upheld during the appeal that resulted in her 2011 murder acquittal.
Knox has returned to Seattle, where she is a student at the University of Washington. She is not attending the third trial being held in an appeals court in Florence.
The European Court for Human Rights is an international court in Strasbourg, France, that oversees the European Convention on Human Rights. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Will Take up New Health Law Dispute
Legal Center |
2013/11/29 10:04
|
The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to referee another dispute over President Barack Obama's health care law, whether businesses can use religious objections to escape a requirement to cover birth control for employees.
The justices said they will take up an issue that has divided the lower courts in the face of roughly 40 lawsuits from for-profit companies asking to be spared from having to cover some or all forms of contraception.
The court will consider two cases. One involves Hobby Lobby Inc., an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain with 13,000 full-time employees. Hobby Lobby won in the lower courts.
The other case is an appeal from Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a Pennsylvania company that employs 950 people in making wood cabinets. Lower courts rejected the company's claims.
The court said the cases will be combined for arguments, probably in late March. A decision should come by late June.
The cases center on a provision of the health care law that requires most employers that offer health insurance to their workers to provide a range of preventive health benefits, including contraception.
In both instances, the Christian families that own the companies say that insuring some forms of contraception violates their religious beliefs.
The key issue is whether profit-making corporations can assert religious beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment provision guaranteeing Americans the right to believe and worship as they choose. Nearly four years ago, the justices expanded the concept of corporate "personhood," saying in the Citizens United case that corporations have the right to participate in the political process the same way that individuals do.
"The government has no business forcing citizens to choose between making a living and living free," said David Cortman of the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian public interest law firm that is representing Conestoga Wood at the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wash. court says gun limits OK before conviction
Legal Center |
2013/11/25 14:38
|
Washington's high court upheld a state law Thursday that prohibits some suspects in serious criminal cases from possessing a firearm before they have been found guilty of a crime.
The state Supreme Court said in a 5-4 ruling that the law did not violate the Second Amendment rights of a man who was eventually convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm.
Justices in the majority opinion wrote the law is limited in scope and duration.
"The State has an important interest in restricting potentially dangerous persons from using firearms," Justice Steven Gonzalez wrote in the majority opinion.
The law prohibits people from having a firearm if they have been released on bond after a judge found probable cause to believe the person has committed a serious offense.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Roy Steven Jorgenson, who authorities said was found with two guns in his car while he was free on bond after a judge had found probable cause to believe Jorgenson had shot someone.
In one of the dissenting opinions, Justice Charles Wiggins wrote that the Legislature may reasonably regulate the right to bear arms. But he said those regulations must comport with due process. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Republicans block nominee to key appeals court
Legal Center |
2013/11/22 09:44
|
Senate Republicans on Monday blocked President Barack Obama's nomination of Robert L. Wilkins to a key appellate court, continuing a nomination fight that has stoked partisan tensions in the Senate.
Wilkins, a District Court judge in Washington who in 2010 was confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote, was nominated to fill one of three vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He is the third straight nominee to the powerful court that Republicans have stopped from being seated.
The Senate voted 53-38 in favor of ending Republican-led delays, falling short of the 60 votes required to advance Wilkins' nomination. Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine voted with Democrats to end debate.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is often referred to as the second most powerful court in the country, after the Supreme Court. Informally known as the D.C. circuit, the court's influence stems from its caseload — it rules on administration orders and regulations — and because some of its judges become Supreme Court justices. The D.C. circuit currently has eight active judges evenly divided between Democratic and Republican nominees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reinstates death penalty notice for Monfort
Legal Center |
2013/11/18 16:16
|
The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that King County prosecutors can seek the death penalty against a man accused of killing a Seattle police officer.
In a unanimous decision, the high court overturned a February King County Superior Court ruling that had found that Prosecutor Dan Satterberg's decision to seek the death penalty against Christopher Monfort was invalid because he relied on a mitigation investigation by his office, rather than waiting for evidence from the defense. The Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty notice, and sent the case back to the trial court to proceed.
Monfort is accused of killing Officer Tim Brenton and wounding another officer as they sat in a patrol car Oct. 31, 2009, as well as setting fires to police cars earlier that month. Monfort was wounded by police during his arrest about a week later in Tukwila. He is paralyzed from the waist down and confined to a wheelchair.
Nearly 10 months after Monfort was arraigned, Satterberg announced he would seek the death penalty. At the time, his office had conducted interviews with more than two dozen of Monfort's friends, acquaintances and family members to see if there was mitigating evidence. Satterberg had not considered any mitigating evidence presented by defense attorneys, because they hadn't given him any.
Under state law, mitigating circumstances that could merit leniency include mental disturbance or disease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer News RSS Feed
