Posts Tagged ‘ Discrimination ’

No Joke: King Arthur ‘Reincarnated’ Files Parking Fee Lawsuit

January 10th, 2017. By LucyC

Pendragon’s Wiki page, 1/10/17

Pay to Pray? Not on your life! Love this. King Arthur Pendragon—the legendary King of England and Excalibur Knight—has come back to defend rights of people to pray without having to worry about their parking. It’s the little things, right?

It seems the English court has granted Pendragon the right to sue Britain’s national historical society over a £15 parking fee.

Just so we’re all clear, Pendragon was born in the century that only recently passed as John Timothy Rothwell but later changed his name to Excalibur. According to Wikipedia, in 1991, he was named Pendragon and Swordbearer to the Glastonbury Order of Druids. It turns out that the self-proclaimed reincarnation of King Arthur is a bit of a crusader (sorry, couldn’t resist) and no stranger to the English courts. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Discrimination
Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See, Discrimination | No Comments »

What’s in a Paint Name? Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, Retaliation…and more!

August 6th, 2014. By AbiK

It’s not often that jurisprudence and home decor intersect. After all, let’s face it, one look at most attorney offices will tell you to look elsewhere for interior design inspiration. But this case—brought to us all compliments of a Mr. Clinton Tucker—is sure to rock the very foundation of the home improvement industry (not).

But I’m ahead of myself so let’s back things up a bit…

Clinton Tucker is a former Benjamin Moore employee who has filed a complaint in Essex County Court (NJ) alleging that the paint company fired him after he repeatedly complained about the “despicable and racially insulting paint colors called ‘Clinton Brown’ and ‘Tucker Chocolate.'” Tucker Chocolate, for those who don’t have a bedside copy of “Paint and Coating News“, is a paint color in the Benjamin Moore historical Williamsburg collection. In the filing, Clinton Tucker refers to himself as an African-American homosexual male—btw, fwiw—and he’s seeking damages for discrimination, retaliation and a hostile work environment.

Without going too deeply into this one, it sounds like a classic “you say ‘to-MAY-to’, I say ‘to-MAH-to'” type of case—you know, where it’s a matter of individual perception. After all, Clinton Brown sounds more to me like the shade of something Hillary (as in Clinton, as in the more caucasion-looking woman who may be running for President) would’ve asked Ralph Lauren to whip up in silk faille for some fete or soiree in the State Dining Room.

But no, Clinton Tucker, being African-American, apparently sees this quite differently—almost as if the Benjamin Moore design team named the Clinton Brown shade with only Mr. Tucker himself in mind! And of course, that same team looked no further than Mr. Tucker for the inspiration in naming their other brown color, “Tucker Chocolate”—coincidence? Hell no—and it HAD to be a racial slur…Never mind that the Williamsburg collection also has a Tucker Orange and Tucker Gray…where’s a gray-haired octogenarian filing a paint name discrimination suit when you need him/her?? Where the heck is the AARP on THIS one, huh??

Oh wait a minute—was that Tucker thing some sort of theme? Why yes it was—for a certain St. George Tucker. THIS Tucker (1752-1827) wound up in Virginia (funny, that’s where Williamsburg is!) by way of Bermuda to become a lawyer (who knew?). Here’s another funny thing—according to just about every online source that was checked for this post, St. George Tucker ‘urged for the abolishment of slavery’. Yes, he authored a pamphlet, “A Dissertation on Slavery: With A Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of It in the State of Virginia“.

So here’s the plot line for this lawsuit so far: Benjamin Moore develops a wide range of paint colors under the umbrella “Williamsburg”. In it, there are at least three colors named after, or in honor of, St. George Tucker—a seemingly respectable Virginian. While St. George Tucker—a would-be abolitionist—is rolling in his grave, a modern-day Clinton Tucker (no known relation to St. George) is suing Benjamin Moore claiming that the paint named for a white pro-abolition dude was actually some inside joke (ha-ha) meant as a racial slur. Are you still with me?

Well, perhaps the real story here is this excerpt from the filing that was re-printed at Courthouse News:

“Tucker claims that “despite his value, accomplishments and productivity for the company, the plaintiff was repeatedly denied opportunities for promotion and growth by BM due to his race” and that “despite spending countless hours in the office, the plaintiff was only getting paid for a 40-hour week…Tucker claims that Benjamin Moore eventually wrongfully terminated him in March 2014, but “retained Tucker’s two white, blonde-haired and blue-eyed subordinates.”

According to Tucker’s LinkedIn profile, he started at BM in June 2011—so he was there for 2 years, 9 months. And, according to a recommendation he received (see below), he actually had been promoted. The recommendation also makes you wonder if those “countless hours” were required, or just Tucker’s regular M.O…

“Clinton is the guy you want on your team when you need results. NO is just not an option. He will dig deep for data and map out a solution or track down an answer while jumping hurdles to do it. As part of the Digital Marketing team he brought a deep analysis of our data that we hadn’t seen before that drove results across all of our digital properties. His expertise in eCommerce helped set the stage for future growth and Clinton demonstrated leadership qualities well deserving of the promotion he received.” – Lisa Sharp, Digital Manager at SRSoft, who previously indirectly managed Clinton at BM

Regardless, if this has any legs, I’m thinking of letting my friend—the one who consistently robs the cradle, so to speak—know that she may have to find a lawyer and file a discrimination suit…Benjamin Moore also has a paint named “Cougar Brown”.

Tags: Benjamin Moore, Clinton Tucker, Discrimination, Retaliation, Totally Tortelicious, Wrongful Termination
Posted in Emerging Issues, Totally Tortelicious | No Comments »

Hey Airbus, Fat People in Aisle Seats is No Solution

April 18th, 2013. By AbiK

Did you hear the latest? Airbus announced recently that they’ll offer the option of installing wider aisle seats on their A320’s to accommodate heavier, aka fat, fliers. This, in response to all the hullabaloo lately over the notion of charging super-size passengers a premium for airline tickets (The Independent has coined a new moniker for this class: “McPassengers“.)

The plan, which Airbus states is in response to “trends in demographics”, is to offer the Airbus A320 with aisle seats that are two inches wider. Where’s the extra width coming from—as let’s face it, there is finite space to work with in the cabin? Apparently from the center and window seats!

That’ll go over like a fart in church, guaranteed.

Can’t help but recall the image of Steve Martin sitting next to John Candy in “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” (see clip above). Granted, Candy gives new meaning to ‘passenger from hell’—but still.

At any rate, let’s play this out. Assume an airplane with wider aisle seats—to be sold to wider passengers at a premium. A “normal” sized person purchases the center or window seat, sans premium. All I need to say to exemplify that this will not be an ideal scenario is one word: bathroom.

Forget about your seating comfort during 95% of the flight when you’re sitting there, still undoubtedly scrunched or your personal space infringed upon—and it will be, as adding two inches—go ahead right now and look at a ruler—will not accommodate a mass amount of additional girth. Forget all about that. Think about the 5% of in-flight time that center- and window-seat passengers will have to get up to either relieve themselves or relieve their aching backs, thereby making the aisle-seat passenger get up—or necessitating an ungraceful attempt to maneuver around him or her. This will not make for good “how was your flight?” customer satisfaction scores.

It’s just sheet common sense.

Of course, there are other angles to this. Is it discrimination to steal from the thin and give to the fat without discounting the thin’s ticket price? Initial reports on this don’t indicate that there would be such discounts. Only that the wider seats would be sold at a higher price.

Then, will there be weigh-ins? Or something that measures body dimensions in such a way as to ensure that only heavier people will have access to those wider aisle seats? Or, could thinner people purchase those seats at a premium to ensure they aren’t going to be squished in-flight? And, if so, what if all the aisle seats are taken up and a fat person wants that seat—does the thinner person get bumped? or moved to first-class for the inconvenience?

Wider aisle seats at the expense of thinner individuals’ seat width is not the market segmentation solution here. It disregards the classic “don’t make your issue my issue” maxim of harmonious human coexistence. And that’s never a good thing at a cruising altitude of 30,000 feet.

Tags: A320, Airbus, Airline Passengers, Airline Seats, Airline Tickets, Discrimination, Fat Fliers, Fat Flights
Posted in Airlines, Discrimination, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

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 »