Posts Tagged ‘ Discrimination ’

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 »

Bullying at Work Latest Top Legal Issue

September 4th, 2012. By AbiK

LawyersandSettlements.com recently published our top 10 lawyer interviews for the month of May, 2012—based on your clicks. What was interesting was that the interview Jane Mundy had done with California employee attorney Donna M. Ballman, P.A. on workplace bullying and harassment on the job was the number one interview for the month.

Just as bullying in the schoolyard—and all forms of bullying such as that which we learned about in the national media after Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi took his own life—have become the focal point for new legislation and tougher penalties, bullying at work has become a hot legal issue.

Just last month, HRMorning published an article highlighting the top legal issues HR pros need to be mindful of for the remainder of 2012. Number 2 on the list? Workplace harassment.

The Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI)—you know an issue has hit a groundswell when there’s an organization dedicated to it—states that 35% of US workers have reported that they’ve been bullied at work. Of note, WBI informs that that’s about the equivalent of the combined populations of Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah.

The organization also defines bullying on the job as the following:

“Workplace Bullying is repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators that takes one or more of the following forms: verbal abuse; offensive conduct/behaviors (including nonverbal) which are threatening, humiliating, or intimidating; and work interference—sabotage—which prevents work from getting done.”

While a definition of workplace bullying provides a guide of bullying tactics, for employees and managers, being aware of signs that might indicate an escalating situation—including workplace violence—is just as important. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (opm.gov) shares the following as signs of workplace violence to be on the lookout for—the signs were identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, Profiling and Behavioral Assessment Unit:

• Direct or veiled threats of harm;
• Intimidating, belligerent, harassing, bullying, or other inappropriate and aggressive behavior;
• Numerous conflicts with supervisors and other employees;
• Bringing a weapon to the workplace, brandishing a weapon in the workplace, making inappropriate references to guns, or fascination with weapons;
• Statements showing fascination with incidents of workplace violence, statements indicating approval of the use of violence to resolve a problem, or statements indicating identification with perpetrators of workplace homicides;
• Statements indicating desperation (over family, financial, and other personal problems) to the point of contemplating suicide;
• Drug/alcohol abuse; and
• Extreme changes in behaviors;

 

Tags: Attorney Donna Ballman, Discrimination, Employment, Jane Mundy, Job Harassment, Workplace Bullying, Workplace Bullying Institute, Workplace Harassment
Posted in Emerging Issues, Employment | 1 Comment »

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 »

White Castle 290 lb Craver Files Lawsuit to Sit

September 13th, 2011. By AbiK

Martin Kessman is, no doubt, a Craver—as in White Castle Craver. The type of guy for whom fast food is about the total all-in experience. So I envision his trips to White Castle completely titillate the senses—from inhaling the grease-laden air that greets him in the parking lot—sometimes with a hint of onion—to squinting at the back-lit menu behind the counter, while the blur of White Castle job agents (that’s what they’re called) provides a reassuring “we’re on it” to affirm his order will be up momentarily. Yes, it’s Martin Kessman’s zone. Or was. Until something shook the very core of his comfort at White Castle, and, he sued.

So now there’s this White Castle Lawsuit.

Here’s the deal. Martin Kessman likes White Castle burgers. In fact, it’s reported that he likes the “Sack Meal 2” (that oughta getcha salivatin’—Sliders in a Sack! That’s Sack Meal 2 shown above, coming in at over 1,000 calories.). But Kessman likes them not in a car, or a plane or a train—but INSIDE White Castle. And Kessman’s a big guy. He’s 290 pounds big. He needs a 290 pound-worthy place to sit and enjoy his Sack of a meal. And, well, the chairs at White Castle—at least the one he frequents in upstate New York—are benches that are bolted to the floor. You can’t pull them out to adjust them to your girth, which Kessman needs to do.

You can’t move the tables either—they’re also bolted down—and Kessman claims to have injured his knee by banging it into the steel support legs in an attempt to sit comfortably. See, Kessman claims the distance between the bolted down chairs and tables are discriminatory to fat people—he can’t fit in without discomfort or apparently knee injury.

So none of this sits well (forgive the pun) with Kessman. And the fact that there aren’t moveable chairs at White Castle is certainly not due to any lack of effort on his part. He’s complained to White Castle. He’s written to corporate headquarters about it. And as the New York Post reported, White Castle even responded by saying that they would be changing the seating—and they even included specs for Kessman to see. Oh, and they sent him some coupons for some burgers. That was over two years ago.

But you know how these corporate-driven changes go…

So Kessman hasn’t witnessed the bolted-down benches being swapped out for four-legged slider chairs (couldn’t resist) and he’s now getting really serious about this whole thing. So the civil liberties lawsuit has been filed. Kessman’s suing for new (presumably more spacious) White Castle chairs, and unspecified damages.

I don’t know how many people out there have really taken affront to White Castle’s seating set-up, but I’m guessing most folks who frequent the fast-food chain are less concerned about comfortable seating and more concerned about downing some sliders—somewhere else. I’m not thinking—in the scheme of things—that this really warrants legal action.

Oh but wait, if this settles—or actually goes to court—I may be able to start a list of all the places I go where things just aren’t made to accommodate tall people, which I am. And guess what? My legs—my knees—slam into practically everything wherever I’m seated! So maybe thanks are in order for Martin Kessman—after all, I can’t help that I’m tall any more than Martin Kessman can help that he’s 290 pounds, right? 😉

Tags: ADA, Civil Liberties, Discrimination, Martin Kessman, White Castle
Posted in Class Action, Discrimination, Emerging Issues | 7 Comments »