Discrimination Archive

Fat Flights: Is Pay-by-the-Pound Coming to Airline Tickets?

March 28th, 2013. By AbiK

We’re not talking baggage here. We’re talking about YOU and those extra pounds of flab you’re lugging around.

There’s an analysis making the media rounds this week, done by economics professor Dr. Bharat P. Bhatta of Sogn og Fjordane University College in Norway. The analysis—an exploratory one, mind you—was published in the Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management and looked at the feasibility and logic of charging airline passengers according to how much they weigh.

It’s a loaded issue. After all, on the one hand, who of us hasn’t sat—scrunched—next to someone whose corpulence edged over the invisible seat boundary into our own personal space? And you’re left thinking, “This is what I paid $600+ for? Six hours of confined discomfort?” Yeah, you know what I’m talking about.

However, on the flip side of course, are those who are larger than a toothpick and, well, isn’t the concept of charging people according to weight a bit discriminatory?

So what’s this analysis all about? You have to take emotion out of the equation for a moment and look at this economically to understand the basis for the discussion. According to CBS New York, the economics are as such…

Bhatta cites an article in The Economist, saying “a reduction of 1 kg (2.2 pounds) weight of a plane will result in a fuel savings worth $3,000 a year and a reduction of CO2 emissions by the same token.”

His arguments stem from the notion that the more weight a plane is carrying, the “stronger an engine is needed and the more fuel it requires to carry” that weight. He also states that additional space is required to accommodate a heavier person.

The end result being a ticket cost that is “not fairly distributed among passengers,” according to Bhatta.

Viewed through that lens, it does cost more to haul more weight through the air—in terms of both cargo and passengers. And, viewed though that same lens (and my scrunched up image above), hasn’t current airline ticket pricing been a bit discriminatory to skinnier passengers then? It’s the classic “it’s your issue, don’t make it mine” argument for equitable or at least non-infringing treatment. And it’s food for thought.

This is not a new discussion. LawyersandSettlements.com has reported on the ‘what to charge fat people’ debate (and I’m not being ugly there—just calling it what it is) before—see our stories on ambulance fees for overweight people and also on overweight people looking for a manicure.

There is no easy or simple answer to this, and the suggestions Bhatta gives for how such a “pay-as-you-weigh” pricing model could be implemented are a bit ludicrous at best. One suggestion—the most obvious—is to charge fares according to actual weight by having a fixed rate per pound (for both “body and bags” as CBS points out).

Can you just envision the weigh-ins at the airport? Would there be curtained-off booths? Would anyone cheer if someone had lost a few pounds vs. their previous flight? (after all, your passenger history would be right there on screen, right?) Maybe Weight Watchers could rent meeting space in the main concourse areas of major airports. Just saying…

Public opinion was divided when John Montone from 1010 WINS in New York interviewed some passengers at Newark Liberty Airport yesterday. While the CBS News online report only shared the thoughts of heavier passengers, who of course were not in favor of such pay-by-the-pound tactics, the live interviews that aired on the radio also included opinion from the thinner set.

Regardless of how you weigh in on the situation (pun intended), somehow I don’t think any airlines will be lining up to implement this one, but you never know…

Tags: Airline Tickets, Discrimination, Dr. Bharat P Bhatta, Obesity, Overweight Passengers, Pay by the Pound
Posted in Airlines, Discrimination, Emerging Issues | 4 Comments »

Extortion Lawsuits? Yuba City Coughs Up $15k To Make George Louie Go Away

October 17th, 2012. By AbiK

George Louie. If you live on the east coast or do not follow news regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) you probably haven’t heard of Mr. Louie. But PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) and hundreds of businesses and attorneys sure have. In fact, if you run a case locator search over at PACER right now—even narrow your search to just civil cases—you’ll find 1,060 records for George Louie.

See, he’s one prolific lawsuit filer. He files them pro se (that is, for himself—without an attorney). And, to many, he’s like that mouse that gets in your house and after you set traps, caulk openings, and even shove steel wool into any and every infinitesimal hole—guess what? Sure as shootin’ the darn thing manages to rip open the box of Bisquick® in the pantry. Yep, he’s that kind of annoying.

Given I write for  a legal new site, LawyersandSettlements.com, I’m all for justice—and ADA compliance. But I’m not for abusing the system or drumming up lawsuits against small businesses that can potentially drive them into bankruptcy when perhaps there are non-litigious workarounds to improve the situation. I daresay that the small businesses who’ve been targeted by Mr. Louie would do what they could (key words there: ‘what they could’) to provide their wares or services to him or help get him access to their establishments. Most small businesses aren’t in the business of trying to alienate customers. But why work with your foe when you can sue them!

So, note to Louie: if the very change you’re trying to affect can’t take effect because the business you’ve targeted can’t afford to make the change, thereby driving it into bankruptcy at worst or non-compliance penalties at best, what have you accomplished? You’re certainly not winning allies, and you—or the community—risks losing a part of what was helping to contribute to a more vital neighborhood.

But then what’s a community to do when under siege from a court-clogging wannabe hero (or grudge-holder, as Louie reportedly told the  Marysville Appeal-Democrat, “I hold grudges”)  who’s costing more time, money and effort than the community can bear?

Enter Yuba City, CA.

Yuba City just took a bold—some would say insane—step to put the brakes on George Louie.

They paid him off. Or, I should say, they settled with him, by agreeing to pay him $15,000 in order for him to stop bringing frivolous lawsuits against them and area businesses. According to the MercuryNews (10/15/12), Yuba City’s economic development manager, Darin Gale states Louie has “agreed not to file ADA lawsuits in our city, period. There’s no timetable. It’s forever.”

Now, what this means for future and copycat lawsuit opportunists is yet to be seen.  But what does this settlement accomplish?

Well, the obvious is that it gets George Louie off Yuba City small businesses’ backs. As CBS News-Sacramento reported (10/13/12), local business owner Jayne Sawyer—who owns  JJ’s Tools and Merchandise—said in regard to the possibility of being targeted by a Louie lawsuit, “We’d probably have to close it down. We do not have the capital; we’re barely breaking even.” Then she says, “It’s just sad because it’s not what the law [ADA] intended to do.”

But it surely doesn’t leave a good taste in everyone’s mouth regarding efforts to put the spotlight on ADA non-compliance. As Yuba City property manager Bill Meagher, who had two tenants sued by Louie, was quoted as saying, “These are extortion lawsuits.” Well, a $15k pay-off could be seen as such.

Tags: ADA, California, Discrimination, Frivolous Lawsuit, George Louie, Lawsuit, Rights of the Disabled, Yuba City
Posted in Discrimination, Emerging Issues, lawsuits, Settlement | 1 Comment »

Student Slam List: Will it Take a Lawsuit for Ladue to Wake Up re Bullying?

September 17th, 2012. By AbiK

A recent report sheds light on a slam list that allegedly targets several girls at the end of their junior year at Ladue Horton Watkins High School in Ladue, MO; the list apparently includes info about hygiene habits and other vulgarities about the girls. Most folks would use one word to describe such behavior: bullying; the parents of the girls being targeted probably have another word in mind: outrage.

One mother—the mother of a boy, btw—does consider it an outrage and she isn’t taking too kindly to the annually produced list. Ruth Alhemeier took her concerns to the Ladue high school principal, Bridget Hermann. The response? In essence, that the list’s been coming out for years and that not much can be done about it…that the school cannot “control the behavior of every single individual student”. (Guess she hasn’t heard of that thing called “zero-tolerance policy” that states like NJ have—?)

True, the Ladue school certainly does not create or distribute the list—the list is created anonymously and distributed “secretly”—but the school environment is clearly ground zero it and it appears the school administration is well aware of it.

So far there doesn’t seem to be any formal, public action taken—and Alhemeier’s keeping her eye on things. She’s ready to to file a federal civil rights complaint under Title IX if need be.

Take a look at the video clip below—is the school system doing enough? Can it do more? Should it do more? You be the judge.

Tags: Bullying, Discrimination, Ladue Horton Watkins High School, Ladue MO, Ruth Alhemeier, Zero Tolerance
Posted in Discrimination, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

Poll Results: College Admissions Affirmative Action

August 7th, 2012. By AbiK

The poll is closed and the results are in. Our poll question this time was:

“The U.S. Supreme Court adds state-mandated racial diversity and affirmative action in college admissions to its docket. Should race be a factor in college admissions?”

The results were close—very close—which is probably no surprise as affirmative action in college admissions tends to be a hot-button topic wherever its brought up (note to self: skip topic at next cocktail party or while in stands at next Little League game). So here’s how the poll turned out:

No, race should not be a factor in college admissions (51%, 133 Votes)

Yes, race should be a factor in college admissions (49%, 130 Votes)

Some background on this one. The U.S. Supreme Court added college admissions affirmative action to its docket—specifically the Court will decide whether admissions policies at the University of Texas—which are allegedly “race-conscious”—violate the rights of, or discriminate against, white college applicants.

The University of Texas case centers on former applicant Abigail Noel Fisher, who had applied to UT, and been rejected, in 2008.

According to CNN, oral arguments would be held in the fall, with a ruling most likely to come in early 2013.

Thanks everyone for participating—be on the lookout for our next poll, coming up soon…

Tags: Affirmative Action, College Admissions, College Application, Discrimination, Reverse Discrimination, SCOTUS, University of Texas
Posted in Discrimination | No Comments »

How Generic Drugs Discriminate Against the Poorest Patients

April 10th, 2012. By AbiK

No one wants to come right out and say it, but that’s basically what’s going on with generic drugs. Poor patients are effectively discriminated against simply by having no choice other than to buy the cheapest version of whatever pill they’ve been prescribed. Cheaper meds are fine—until you factor in that the more expensive brand name equivalents come with a bit of an extra ‘insurance policy’—no, not the type of insurance you’re thinking of—it’s insurance in the sense of legal recourse should something go wrong as a result of taking the drug.

Let’s face it, outside of those who claim to buy the cheaper equivalent on ‘principle’, for the most part the folks who are buying generics are those who either simply cannot afford the brand-name drug or those who’ll lose prescription coverage benefits unless they opt for the generic shown on the approved formulary from their insurance company. We’re not talking the 1% here, folks.

Sure, it’s great that cheaper generic versions of big-name blockbuster drugs are available—we’d all be broke otherwise. But generics have a hidden cost, too…

Legally speaking, that cost can be tremendous. How so? Well, what if something goes wrong—horribly wrong—upon taking the drug? What if there’s a serious reaction to the drug, like a ruptured tendon from a fluoroquinolone? Or tardive dyskinesia from a ‘good as Reglan’ generic? Sure, the generic drug should in most instances perform like its pricier twin—but there’s a catch: unlike with brand name drugs, if something goes wrong, there’s not much legally at present that can be done (from a strict product liability standpoint—not talking malpractice here).

The issue with generic drugs has to do with liability—being liable when harmful side effects occur. And simply put, generic manufacturers are not held liable.

Currently, it’s the brand name drug manufacturers who are responsible for ensuring their drug has gone through a rigorous FDA-approval process and they’re also responsible for making any label changes should new warnings be applied to a drug they’ve produced.

Generic manufacturers, however, don’t have quite the same responsibility. The Hatch-Waxman Act—officially, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984—made it easier for generics to find their way to market. Generic drugs do not have to go through a lengthy FDA approval process if they’re able to prove that the generic drug is equivalent to the brand name version. And, as such, the generic drug simply picks up the labelling information and package insert information from the brand name drug. When any changes are necessary (e.g., adding a black box warning), the generic is required to duplicate what’s happened with the brand name drug.

The most significant benefit of the Hatch-Waxman Act for blockbuster brand name drug manufacturers is that it allows the big pharma companies a period of exclusivity in the marketplace before the generic drug enters the market.

Now, the difference between a drug liability lawsuit for a generic vs a brand name is most glaring when you look at lawsuit outcomes. One of the most publicized examples showing the difference between a brand name drug lawsuit and a lawsuit with the same, but generic, drug involves phenergan.

In both cases the plaintiffs—both women who were administered the anti-nausea drug in a hospital and then subsequently lost an arm due to gangrene—sued the drug manufacturers. In the brand-name case, it was v. Wyeth; in the other, the generic, it was v. Baxter Healthcare. The upshot was that the plaintiff who had the ‘good fortune’ to have been given the brand name version received a multi-million dollar settlement. The generic patient? Her lawsuit against Baxter was dismissed. She had also filed a malpractice lawsuit, the final terms of which were undisclosed. 

Both women had life-altering injuries; only one received settlement money from the drug manufacturer.

While the phenergan lawsuits began in a hospital setting where the choice of brand name or generic may not have been the patients’ to make, the outcomes of their lawsuits show the stark difference in terms of liability claims. And, for patients who simply cannot afford to choose a brand-name drug, choosing the generic becomes a more or less de facto decision to give up the right to sue the drug company. And in that sense, generic drugs do discriminate against the poorest patients.

Tags: Big Pharma, Discrimination, Drug Formulary, Drug Lawsuit, Generic Drugs, Preemption, Prescription drugs, Product Liability
Posted in Discrimination, Drugs/Medical, Emerging Issues | No Comments »