Author Archive

Too Sexy for his Job? Lawsuit says Boss-Lady Looking for Love, not getting any…

December 3rd, 2014. By LucyC

Ok—brace yourselves for crazy sh*t lawyers see…

I’m too sexy for my job, too sexy for my boss, too sexy for my … gosh! I’ve been fired! Wait just a cotton pickin’ moment here! And no, this is not about Bill Cosby or Jian Ghomeshi. This, my friends, is the tale of a middle-aged mechanic from Long Island (species description) who recently lost his job for refusing to date his boss. Fifty-three year old Robert Inchierchiro, who is described by the New York Post as being a balding, paunchy former school mechanic, has become a bit of a sensation, having filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Nassau BOCES, a vocational school where he says he was fired for rejecting the advances of his married supervisor, Lisa Rice.

According to Inchierchiro’s complaint, he was also bullied by two now former bosses for rejecting his Rice’s entreaties. And, they even visited the workplace of his girlfriend—one “Vanessa”—who shall remain unidentified. Apparently, Inchierchiro began dating Vanessa while working at the school. Rice had been his supervisor for about a year at that point. Um. Unrequited workplace infatuation? Among other things, I’m thinking.

The trouble apparently started in August this year, when 50-year old Lisa Rice bought Inchierchiro a ticket for a “work-related” cruise. The caveat? No girlfriends allowed, at least not on her dime. If Vanessa wanted to go, she’d have to buy her own ticket, the lawsuit states. Rice apparently also asked Inchierchiro to drive her to the event, which implied she saw the outing as a “date”.

“Bob, uncomfortable with . . . Lisa’s jealousy of Vanessa . . . told Lisa that he would have to get back to her,” the filing states.

On the day of the cruise, Rice told Inchierchiro she was sick and would not be going to the event, so he asked a buddy to accompany him—good idea. Or not. Ah, not. This guy couldn’t win for losing. When he was on the cruise, Rice showed up at his home all dressed and ready to rock. According to the complaint, she “asked Vanessa if Bob was ready to go to the cruise.” When she was told that Bob had gone with a friend, Rice allegedly called Inchierchiro, in front of Vanessa, saying: “How could you do this to me? You know I got all dolled up! Why would you go without me?” Really, where shall we start?

The following Monday Inchierchiro was confronted by his 57-year old supervisor Lori Rowcroft, for going on the cruise with his friend instead of Rice. The lawsuit states that Rowcroft demanded he apologize to Rice. Still with me? (I don’t think any guy could make this up—it’s way too complicated).

The lawsuit states that when Inchierchiro called to apologize, Rice cried, “I can’t believe you’d do this. How dare you!” From that point on, Inchierchiro alleges Rice excluded him from events and told the  superintendent that he had damaged a new GPS system, for which Inchierchiro was placed on paid leave.

Last month, Inchierchiro complained to another supervisor, days later he was fired, the lawsuit states.

“My client was courageous to stand up to sexual harassment in the workplace,” said Inchierchiro’s lawyer, David Rosenberg. “We are seeing more female-on-male sexual harassment in the workplace.”  Bring on the HRT, I say. This reads like a daytime soap.

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | 1 Comment »

Mama Mia! It’s a Pasta War! Cipriani v. Cipriani

November 12th, 2014. By LucyC

David & Goliath go at it over Pasta—it could get Saucy!!

Two Italian food joints—one a high end chain in Manhattan—The Cipriani Group—which includes Harry Cipriani Fifth Avenue in Midtown and other Cipriani Group establishments, and a mom and pop operation in Chicago—Cipriani’s Pasta and Sauce of Chicago Heights—have taken the gloves off and intend to duke it out in court over trademark infringement.

Cipriani’s Pasta and Sauce of Chicago Heights, owned by Annette Johnson, got hit with the $1 million plus lawsuit by Cirpirani Group over allegations that the little tomato is trying to profit off the big tomato—so to speak—by using the same name. Johnson says, well—you can guess. She has filed a countersuit.

I love this stuff. Nothing like a good food fight!

The nuts and bolts—Johnson claims her food is better and it’s been around longer than Ciprianis in NYC. “The [Chicago] Ciprianis’ pasta was and continues to be made by hand and is air-dried naturally, which gives the pasta more character and flavor and results in a higher-quality product compared to commercial pasta which is heat-dried,” according to the lawsuit. She claims she has no desire to be associated with NYC outfit, and claims in her countersuit that the Cipriani Group’s trademarks dates only to 1985—“long after” Cipriani’s Pasta and Sauce opened a trademarked business. Her business began as a small Italian restaurant in Chicago Heights opened by John and Mary Cipriani in 1929, according to The New York Post. In 1955 the couple began selling  their homemade pasta and sauces in regional stores, expanding their business, and decades later, sales went online. Johnson bought the business in 2004.

For their part, the Cipriani Group, who got the whole thing rolling, claim that Johnson and her Chicago-based business are attempting to profit off the reputation of their restaurants by making “a concerted effort to associate their inferior,” cheaper products with their goods. FYI—the Cipriani Group counts A-listers  Kim Kardashian and Robert De Niro as customers.

It is a little confusing, however, that both businesses sell Cipriani-branded products in grocery stores, supermarkets and online.

It is just possible that the big guns may have bitten off more than can chew on this one. In her court filings, Johnson says that if anyone is deceiving customers, it’s the Cipriani Group — causing Midwesterners to believe its products are affiliated with her popular local enterprise. As the best defense is a good offense… she’s seeking a court order to stop the Cipriani Group from selling its products in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin—the heart of pasta-eating country (?). Since the Cipriani Group operates restaurants, banquet halls and other businesses around the world—maybe they could concede the Midwest—it wouldn’t be the end of the world. But there’s a principle at stake here!

Johnson also wants the Cipriani Group to stop “doing any other act likely to confuse, mislead or deceive others into believing that CGI or its products and services are affiliated with, connected with, sponsored by, approved by CP&S or its products,’’ according to the papers.

FYI—Harry Cipriani Fifth Avenue in Midtown and other Cipriani Group establishments are an offshoot of Harry’s Bar, a famous Venice, Italy, tavern opened in the 1930s by Giuseppe Cipriani.

Let the tomatoes fall where they will.

Posted in Emerging Issues, Totally Tortelicious | 3 Comments »

“American Hustle” in a Tussle? Exploding Microwave Scene is Center of Lawsuit

November 6th, 2014. By LucyC

Fact or fiction—or somewhere in between. For science journalist Paul Brodeur, it’s about the fact that the fiction got in the way. He’s filed a lawsuit against the makers of the movie American Hustle, alleging the scene in which Jennifer Lawrence’s character Rosalyn tells her husband, Irving, played by Christian Bale, that microwaves take the nutrition out of food. “That’s bullshit,” Irving replies, and his wife shows him a magazine and says, “It’s not bullshit. I read it in an article. Look, by Paul Brodeur.” Bingo—lawsuit.

Brodeur was a staff writer for The New Yorker for nearly 40 years, so yes—he would have seen the birth of the microwave and remembered the fear and enthusiasm with which the kitchen device was welcomed. To say it was controversial when it hit American kitchens would be an understatement, but, as we know, we embraced it regardless of the fiction, facts, whatever. The main concern was radiation. Brodeur addressed this in a book he wrote entitled “The Zapping of America”, about the ‘dangers’ of microwave radiation.  BUT—according to his lawsuit, he never claimed that microwaves remove the nutrition from food during the cooking process.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Brodeur told the Huffington Post, way back in January 2014—when American Hustle was playing to packed cinemas, that the film had incorrectly attributed the faulty science to him. His resulting lawsuit names  the producers and distributors, Columbia Pictures, Atlas Entertainment and Annapurna Pictures, as defendants, who clearly should have known better.

In his complaint, Brodeur claims that by attributing to him a “scientifically unsupportable statement,” the filmmakers have damaged his reputation. “The scene from the movie American Hustle where the defamatory statement was made is highly offensive to a reasonable person,” the complaint states. Brodeur is alleging libel, defamation, slander and false light, and he claims to have suffered $1 million in damages, the HR states.

BUT—you knew there was a but—American Hustle may be a challenge for a libel suit because the opening of the film states “Some of this actually happened.” The film is loosely based on true events, and the filmmakers purposefully maintained a distance from truth in the film. The basis for libel typically rests on the defendant presenting as true a statement that he or she knows or should know is false.

American Hustle was written by Russell and Eric Warren Singer and starred Christian Bale, Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper and Amy Adams. It was nominated for 10 Academy Awards, including best film.

Personally, the ‘microwave scene’ as I shall refer to it, was one of my favorites. But I have to confess, I didn’t even notice the name of the journalist, nor do I remember the article in any detail, probably because I was laughing so hard. What do I remember is that the scene humorously captured the cultural paranoia and ignorance surrounding the microwave in the 1970s, ignorance and paranoia that Brodeur was arguably trying to dispel.

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | No Comments »

Facebook Status: Baby Due! Legally, It’s Complicated…

October 31st, 2014. By LucyC

An interesting ruling about Facebook recently—reflective of changing generational attitudes on appropriate communication. Bottom line, while it may be OK to tell friends and family that you’re expecting a baby via Facebook—the social media goliath is not an appropriate medium by which pregnant women may notify the biological father of the child, according to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

The ruling stems from a case brought by the biological father of a child who was given up for adoption by the birth mother. Billy McCall alleged he had no knowledge of the child until “a week after the child was born.” The mother had voluntarily given up her rights a little over a month after giving birth, however, according to The Wall Street Journal, McCall had his parental rights terminated in 2013 by a trial court almost a year after the baby had been born. When McCall learned of this he didn’t want to give up his child, which left the adoptive parents in a mess and possibly without the child they assumed would be theirs.

It turns out that in Oklahoma courts recognize that unwed fathers have some parental rights with regard to their children, as long as they are given proper notice of their existence and acknowledge them. FYI Oklahoma is not the only state that recognizes paternal rights of children born out of wedlock. Apparently, courts want to see whether a father in that situation acknowledged that the child was his and subsequently took steps to take responsibility for parenting.

In his lawsuit, McCall claimed that he did acknowledge parentage and take steps to parent, but was late in doing so because of a lack of notice of the pregnancy by the mother. For the record, she alleges she sent him a Facebook message at some point before she gave birth. And the court said…sorry—but an FB message ain’t gonna cut it.

I realize this may seem antiquated, but snail mail is still an option, if you know to use it. I would have thought there are several advantages to the good old pony express—not the least of which would be privacy. But, what do I know. I’m not sure it’s something I’d want to find out about on FB—if I were the father. And, how do you know it’s not a hoax?

In delivering the Supreme Court’s 6-3 majority ruling, Justice Douglas Combs wrote that Facebook is “an unreliable method of communication” which is insufficient to meet the state’s requirement that mothers give notice of pregnancy to fathers. While this ruling is clear, the law generally is not, so much. For example, while General Motors uses FB to notify customers of recalls—most notably the recent defective ignition switch recall, it’s not clear whether notice of lawsuits can be served on FB, for example.

Enquiring minds want to know—what happens if the servers go down, or your account is hacked, or the recipient doesn’t use FB regularly? If the intended recipient doesn’t get the intended message for any of those reasons, would FB be liable? Assuming someone has regular access to FB is dangerous, particularly in cases such as this, as the adoptive parents are finding out to the misery. In a case where a baby is being adopted at or shortly after birth, termination of parental rights, based on the assumption the biological father knows about the child, is a very big deal for all concerned. Hearts will be broken and lives changed forever. I wonder if an email would suffice?

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | No Comments »

For Art’s Sake! Prisoner Sues over Book Ban

October 23rd, 2014. By LucyC

No nudes allowed.

If you can’t read you might as well write—right? Write a lawsuit that is—this one was recently filed by a 44-year old man who has been convicted of murder and is set to spend the next 56 years behind bars.

Dwight Pink Jr alleges his constitutional rights are being denied because the prison guards at the facility in Connecticut where he is incarcerated, used a policy to deny him access to an “art book”—the “Atlas of Foreshortening”—which contains nude pictures. So this ban also goes under the guise of a ban on pornography. Oh, this old chestnut. According to Pink, the ban is a violation of his free speech rights and serves no meaningful objective in prison.

Of course, the state doesn’t agree, and stated in its response that Pink has not been harmed by the ban and none of his rights were violated. Hmm… “Any injury or harm, if any, was caused solely by plaintiff’s own acts, omissions, or conduct and was not due to any wrongful conduct by the defendants,” Assistant Attorney General Steven Strom wrote.

What conduct, acts or omissions are they referring to?

The back story is that in 2011, the state Department of Correction put out the administrative directive banning all material that contains “pictorial depictions of sexual activity or nudity” from the prisons. Art books would definitely fall into that category. BUT, the state also said the ban should not apply to “materials which, taken as a whole, are literary, artistic, educational or scientific in nature.”

I think benefit would be derived from defining those terms, no? Certainly it would reduce the paperwork. Apparently the ban has resulted in half a dozen lawsuits being filed, no surprise there, challenging the greyer than grey law, in both state and federal courts.

The ban was intended to improve the work environment for prison staffers, especially female staffers. What’s that expression—the road to hell is paved with good intentions…

Jaclyn Falkowski, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, said the cases that have been filed are still being litigated. At least the lawyers are making money.

According to the New York Post, in 2012 a judge hearing a case refused to issue a preliminary injunction allowing inmate Akove Ortiz to possess magazines like “Playboy.” He wrote in his ruling, “Although prisoners do not forfeit all of their constitutional rights upon incarceration, the fact of incarceration and the needs of the prison system impose limitations on prisoners’ constitutional rights, even those derived from the First Amendment.”

In an interview with the Post, William Dunlap, a law professor at Quinnipiac University, said that in general the courts have taken the side of the state, if the prison officials can prove the ban has a legitimate goal other than to simply suppress material that some people might find objectionable. One such goal would be maintaining safety in the prisons or keeping the material out of the hands of sex offenders. Makes sense. But Dunlap added that Pink’s lawsuit has a chance of succeeding provided he can prove that his book was improperly denied him because it falls under the categories art and/or literature. “I think that’s a much stronger argument than saying the statute itself is facially unconstitutional,” he told the Post.

So we’re back to the definition of art. I think that debate has been taking place for at least 2,000 years.

FYI—Pink is doing 56-years for his role in the 1998 slaying of a 35-year-old man in Old Saybrook. According to the authorities, the victim, Scott Rufin, was shot up to five times in the head with two guns and stabbed in the heart seven times with a sword, authorities said. The title of that work would be the Foreshortening of Human Life…

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | No Comments »