Asbestos News Roundup: 10.6.11

October 6th, 2011. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

Asbestos Lawsuits

St. Clair County, IL: Edward and Iva Hayes filed an asbestos lawsuit late in September, naming 53 companies as defendants. The Hayes allege the defendants caused Edward Hayes to develop asbestos-related lung cancer resulting from his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career as a fireman.

According to the lawsuit, Edward Hayes worked as a fireman from 1945 until 1947, as a mechanic at Clyde Jones Auto from 1948 until 1954, as a plumber and pipefitter at various private businesses from 1954 until 1956, as a plumber and pipefitter at Warren Green Plumbing from 1956 until the 1960s and as a maintenance worker and plumber at Appalachian State University from the 1960s until the 1990s.

As a result of his asbestos-related diseases, Edward Hayes has become disabled and disfigured. Further, the lawsuit alleges he incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, and he became prevented from pursuing their normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued.

The Hayes are seeking a judgment of more than $100,000, compensatory damages of more than $100,000, punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendant for their misconduct and punitive and exemplary damages of more than $100,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems just.

St. Clair County, IL: Another asbestos lawsuit was filed in late September by Delvin and Rosalie Schuessler , who name 45 defendants. The Schuesslers allege Delvin Schuessler developed asbestos-related lung cancer resulting from asbestos exposure during his career as a maintenance worker and mechanic at McDonnell Douglas/Boeing from 1955 until 1977.

In their lawsuit, the Schuesslers allege the defendants should have known of the harmful effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for the Delvin Schuessler’s safety.

As a consequence of his asbestos-related diseases, the asbestos lawsuit alleges, Delvin Schuessler is now disabled and disfigured, and he has incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish. In addition, his is prevented from pursuing their normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued, the plaintiffs claim.

The Schuesslers are seeking a judgment of more than $100,000, compensatory damages of more than $100,000, punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants for their misconduct, punitive and exemplary damages of more than $100,000 and economic damages of more than $150,000. (madisonrecord.com)

Hollywood Lawsuit #2: PR Peeps Show up at Events, Don’t get Paid?

October 5th, 2011. By AbiK

The difference between this Hollywood lawsuit and yesterday’s post is that this one comes from a PR Rep who was actually on payroll.

Seems Daniel Malakhov—who worked for major PR firm Rogers & Cowan—filed a lawsuit against the firm alleging that he and other Rogers & Cowan publicists were required to work PR events after hours (when else are they typically?)—but they did not receive overtime pay, meal breaks or rest breaks. I suppose it has the makings of your basic California overtime lawsuit, if not perhaps that of a script-worthy plot line.

And let’s face it, if you’ve ever attended a PR event of any sort, it’s the PR folks who are hustling around, playing meet & greet, and ensuring all runs smoothly. Heck, even bathroom breaks can be hard to come by. It’s easy to see where overtime pay could be in order.

Apparently, too, the lawsuit claims that Rogers & Cowan didn’t mandate attendance at PR functions, but in making them voluntary made it clear that failure to attend such events would negatively affect their chances of career advancement.

So Malakhov is thinking bigger here—it’s Hollywood, after all. He’s seeking class action status on this one. And, Malakhov, showing a bit of altruism (?), is looking out for his PR brethren and filing the class action on behalf of all the firm’s employees.

The class action seeks the usual suspects: back wages and damages–along with an injunction that would force Rogers & Cowan to change its after-hours work policies.

In terms of the injunction, however, US District Judge George H. Wu ruled last week that Malakhov could not seek the injunction as Malakhov, himself, could no longer benefit from it as he is no longer an employee of the firm. Needless to say, Malakhov’s side is saying that to reject the injunction would mess with the the ability for the lawsuit to help those current employees who are seemingly still at the mercy of Rogers & Cowan’s existing  (alleged) pay practices.

Hollywood Lawsuit #1: Black Swan Interns Name Wrong Defendant?

October 4th, 2011. By AbiK

It’s a long-standing reality that the words “glamour and prestige” don’t find themselves in the same sentence with “unpaid intern” in just about any industry. But, when it comes to movie production gigs or landing a plum internship at a fashion mag, they never do.

And there’s a reason for that.

The reason is, you’re there as low-cost help—ok, exceedingly low-cost help—for which in return you get to learn, potentially come within 50 feet of the talent or score some swag—and—and here’s the biggie—you get to pay your dues. Why? Because if you’re going for an unpaid internship you’re most likely trying to rack up resume bullet points (or, nowadays, LinkedIn blurbs) and, btw, you most likely don’t have enough of those bullets and blurbs to actually land a paying gig.

Ahh, but that harsh reality has not stopped Alex Footman and Eric Glatt from filing a labor lawsuit against Black Swan movie production company, Fox Searchlight. Indeed, they’re seeking class action status. And back pay. And an injunction prohibiting Fox Searchlight from improper use of unpaid interns.

It seems both Footman and Glatt were given the opportunity to work as unpaid interns on the flick. But they were treated badly—badly as in having to get coffees and lunches. I don’t know what they expected, beyond what the FLSA outlines as criteria for an internship at a for-profit,  but I’m sort of glad after seeing the movie that no one at the helm offered them an internship manning the camera, making final edits—or doing Natalie Portman’s makeup.

The FLSA internship guidelines include the following six criteria:

• The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
• The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
• The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
• The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be  impeded;
• The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
• The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

It’s probable, or at least highly arguable, that Footman and Glatt got training & experience, got an incredible credit on their resumes, didn’t displace anyone, were supervised, probably got more out of the deal than the production company did, did not have any promise of a job ex post facto and weren’t paid.

Public sentiment (as in comments I’ve been reading across the web on this story) seems to support the notion that perhaps Footman and Glatt have been living in some self-entitlement fairyland in which they’ve interpreted an unpaid internship to equate something akin to an actual new hire program. You know—where the red carpet (no pun) is rolled out for that honeymoon phase of employment…the company’s vision statement handed over in colorful PowerPoint…the new hire welcome luncheon…the mentor program…the benefits enrollment…

I’m usually all for the down-trodden workers—those who are really being ‘used and abused’—like the alleged abuse going on over at that Amazon warehouse. But somehow, this Black Swan intern lawsuit just doesn’t seem to have enough going for it for me. Maybe I feel this way even more so as a result of Fox Searchlight’s official response to the lawsuit—a key excerpt of which is here:

“These interns were not even retained by Fox Searchlight and, in fact, were working for the production company that made Black Swan well before Fox Searchlight even acquired its rights in the film. These individuals were never employed as interns or retained in any capacity by Fox Searchlight, which has a proud history of supporting and fostering productive internships.”

If indeed true, it just makes a mockery out of things here even more—and may make plaintiffs Footman and Glatt black sheep of the film industry (ok, couldn’t resist that one). It sort of helps your cause when you sue the right defendant, right? And, I can only postulate that well, let’s face it, if you want your lawsuit to grab headlines, better to go with a bigger name defendant like Fox Searchlight, right? (ps, Fox Searchlight’s official response also stated that it was an attempt to grab media attention; it was reportedly director Darren Aronofsky’s production company who had initially brought Footman and Glatt on as unpaid interns).

We’ll have to monitor this one, but in the meantime, it’s been announced that Darren Aronofsky is set to direct  the new film, Noah. Word to the unwise (and unpaid) interns who are chomping at the bit to be a part of this one: don’t forget your wellies.

ADT Alarm Failure Deadly in Minnesota, Leads to ADT Settlement

October 3rd, 2011. By AbiK

Who ya gonna call? Well, if you’ve had an ADT alarm system installed, you’re proababy thinking you don’t need to call anyone if someone should break into your home. After all, ADT is supposed to be right on it, detecting a break-in and alerting the police who should then get to your home more quickly than if you had detected the break-in yourself and tried to dial 911.

Right?

Unfortunately, a for a couple in Minnesota, things didn’t turn out that way. Their ADT alarm system failed—when they needed it most.

In 2006, Teri Lee had been afraid that her ex-boyfriend, Steven Van Keuren, might cause trouble—he’s the reason why she purchased an ADT system for her home. Sadly, Lee’s worst fears came true when Van Keuren entered Lee’s home and shot both her and her new boyfriend, Timothy Hawkinson. Both Lee and Hawkinson died.

Lee’s estate filed a lawsuit against ADT, and recently reached a confidential settlement.

Loss of life by murder is surely what we’d hope would be a freak accident as the alleged result of an alarm system failure. But it’s not all that far out there to envision, is it?… A break-in happens…should be your run-of-the-mill burglary…maybe the thief is looking for some jewelry, or cash…but maybe he finds the homeowner instead…unexpectedly. The outcome could be all the same—death—except legally we just call it different things…it’s a matter of degrees.

But what if it could’ve been prevented? What if there were a reasonable expectation—heck, a contractual expectation—that an installed alarm system should function properly and the would-be victim were still alive? No alarm system that touts itself as your security blanket and knight in shining armor should fail in your hour of need.

Over the past year and a half, LawyersandSettlements.com has received a number of complaints from individuals stating that their ADT alarm systems failed—or that the ADT response time was inadequate. Thankfully, they are all alive to tell their stories.

And, if we go back to 2007, there actually had been a lawsuit filed against ADT alleging slow response times—and it was seeking class action status.

Last Call on Certainteed Shingle Settlement – Some may still submit Claim

September 30th, 2011. By AbiK

If you were affected by the CertainTeed Organic Shingle Class Action, listen up.

We’ve gotten a very high number of complaints about CertainTeed shingles—in fact, we continue to get them. But if you purchased, installed—or even took on ownership of a home with defective CertainTeed Organic Shingles—and the shingles failed prematurely or did not perform in accordance with reasonable expectations, you may still be able to submit a claim form over at the CertainTeed Organic Shingle Class Action Settlement website. (Please note: do not submit a complaint here at LawyersandSettlements.com.)

To be sure, figuring out what type of shingles you have, when they were installed, how long the shingle warranty is, and how that all figures into if and when you need to submit a claim form by is no easy task. But the claims administrator has provided a chart showing the various warranty lengths for each of the CertainTeed Organic Shingle types (Custom Lok 25, Custom Saf-T-Lok/Saf-T-Lok, Custom Sealdon, Custom Sealdon 30, Hallmark Shangle, Hearthstead, Horizon, Shangle, Independence Shangle, Master Slab, Sealdon 20, Sealdon 25, Solid Slab).

Once you review the chart showing you what your warranty length is for your shingles, you can then determine when you either needed to submit a claim by (some claim submission dates have already passed) or if you still may be able to file a claim.

IMPORTANT: If you are not covered by the warranty or if you settled your warranty claim since August 1, 2006, your claim form must be postmarked or otherwise received by CertainTeed within 12 months after the effective settlement date of October 2, 2010.

If this applies to YOU—it’s last call for making a claim in the CertainTeed Organic Shingle Settlement—your claim form needs to be postmarked by October 2, 2011 (Sunday). So get moving!

Visit the CertainTeed Organic Shingle Class Action Settlement website for more info.