lawsuit

Office Politics

Supreme Court Rules: Workers' Texts Aren't Private

You probably already know that the emails you send at work are subject to company scrutiny.

You probably already know that the emails you send at work are subject to company scrutiny. Your employer has a right to track emails you send from your work account and that information isn't really private. But what about your cell phone? Well, if your employer covers the bill on your cell, it turns out the texts you send and receive on it aren't all that private either.

The case of City of Ontario v. Quon, a recent Supreme Court ruling decided that the text messages sent between Jeff Quon, a police sergeant in Ontario, CA, and his wife, were not private: "In a unanimous decision, the court decided, that Quon had no reasonable expectation of privacy in this particular case and that the city did not violate his constitutional rights." Still, while the ruling offers some food for thought, it doesn't go so far as to set a precedent, since the court also made clear that workers do have some right to privacy with regard to workplace communications.

As the digital age has already proven, it takes a little trial and error to make sense of technology in the workplace. We've seen Twitter, Facebook, and beyond influence employees and their employers. What comes next is more in the way of real life experimentation — employees and employers testing the boundaries of private, public, and Internet domain. So, what do you make of the ruling? If your company pays for your phone, are they entitled to the content on it?


News

Lawsuit Calls Jillian Michaels's Supplements "Worthless"

I'll admit I was shocked when The Biggest Loser trainer and Fit favorite Jillian Michaels start endorsing a line of supplements.

I'll admit I was shocked when The Biggest Loser trainer and Fit favorite Jillian Michaels start endorsing a line of supplements. Many of you thought it could potentially damage her reputation, and it looks you might have been right.

Michaels and her supplements are now the target of a class action lawsuit filed in Los Angeles, claiming that the Jillian Michaels Maximum Strength Calorie Control dietary supplement is "worthless." "Telling people you take two magic pills and then eat chocolate cake all day is a deception," says Melissa Harnett, the lawyer on the case. According to TMZ, the court documents go on to say:

"Sadly, Michaels has decided to exploit her fame and goodwill by collaborating with Thin Care and Basic Research to promote a weight loss supplement that purportedly will cause weight loss by itself, without any additional effort on the part of the consumer."

What do you think of the allegations? Does this change your opinion about Michaels and her decision to endorse the products?

Poll

Should Hooters Waitresses Have to Pay For Their Own Uniforms?

Hooters is one of the rare establishments where the workers' uniforms are more famous than the food.

Hooters is one of the rare establishments where the workers' uniforms are more famous than the food. In some states, employees are required to cover the bill for their orange outfits, but New York isn't one of those places. That's why two New York women are suing Hooters for forcing them to buy their own work wardrobes.

Gina Rosati and Amy Frederick say Hooters required them to buy the getup, and their lawyer says it's against state law to make employees purchase anything other than street clothes. The total for each uniform is $19.45, broken down below. What do you think; should the ladies be responsible for the job-related expenses?

  • $5.45 for orange hot pants
  • $6 for the Hooters embellished tank top
  • $3.25 for a pouch
  • $2.50 for "suntan" pantyhose
  • $2.25 for thick white socks
Poll

What's Your Take: Do Pets Have a "Subjective Value?"

After nearly three years of litigation (!), the case of Dexter has come to an end.

After nearly three years of litigation (!), the case of Dexter has come to an end. When Doreen Houseman and Eric Dare ended their relationship in May 2006, a New Jersey court ruled Eric could keep their pug since it was in his possession at the time. However, earlier this year, an appeals panel reversed the decision saying the judge neglected to consider the dog's "subjective value", making him more like a family heirloom or work of art that cannot simply be awarded to one party for a face-value payment — Doreen received $1,500 — no one can measure Dexter's exact worth.

Now the pup will rotate every five weeks between the homes of the separated couple — do you agree with the "subjective value" decision overturning the custody ruling?

Marriage

Mother-in-Law Can't Take a Joke, Sues Comedian

Well, a comedian who just happens to be her daughter-in-law!

Well, a comedian who just happens to be her daughter-in-law!

It sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, but comedian Sunda Croonquist’s mother-in-law Ruth Zafrin was not kidding when she filed a lawsuit against Sunda for telling so many jokes about her. Croonquist capitalizes on their ethnic differences in her envelope-pushing jokes — she is half-black and half-Swedish, was raised Catholic, and married into a Jewish family.

A typical joke goes something like this. On a first visit to her mother-in-law Ruthie’s house, Croonquist says, "I walk in, I say, 'Thank you so much for having me here, Ruthie.' 'The pleasure’s all mine,' she replies, 'have a seat.' Then she whispers, 'Harriet, put my pocketbook away.'"

Zafrin filed the lawsuit (along with her daughter and her daughter's husband), when material on Croonquist's website made it easy for people to figure out the in-laws' identities. Croonquist is accused of "spreading false, defamatory and racist lies" in comedy club routines that have even been aired on Comedy Central. Croonquist agreed to remove any offensive comments on her website but refused to pay a settlement. (Her husband's law firm is handling her case. Awkward!)

Zafrin isn't exactly giving mother-in-laws a good name. It seems that there would've been a less alienating way of handling this, like, say, asking Croonquist to cut it out! Who do you think is in the wrong?

Poll

Unemployed Woman Sues College — Does She Have a Case?

It might be a first.

It might be a first. Twenty-seven-year-old Trina Thompson filed a lawsuit against Monroe College for $70,000, the total of her tuition, with the claim that her alma mater has failed to deliver on its promises.

She graduated in April with a bachelor's degree in IT and hasn't yet found employment, a fact that she blames on the lack of leads and career advice from Monroe. A spokesman for the school insists the lawsuit is without merit. Do you think Trina has a case?

Food

Denny's Sued For High Sodium Foods

We all know that many fast food chain's menu items are high in the sodium department.

We all know that many fast food chain's menu items are high in the sodium department. Armed with this knowledge, we just avoid eating at these places. Although a New Jersey resident doesn't think it's right, and is taking action against one popular chain, Denny's. Together Nick DeBenedetto and the Center for Science in the Public Interest filed a lawsuit, claiming that many of this restaurant's meals "are dangerously high in sodium."

Just how high? To find out read more

Poll

Have You Participated in Class Action Settlements?

It seems there's a class action lawsuit happening at any given moment.

It seems there's a class action lawsuit happening at any given moment. Recent cases involving credit reporting and cosmetics have shown that settlement terms from class action suits are favorable to the consumer, but have you ever made a claim to participate?


Source

consumerism

Cosmetics Class Action Suit: Free Products Up to $25

In a matter of a few months, Macy's, Bloomingdale's, Filene's, Lord & Taylor, Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, and Saks Fifth Avenue will be giving away $175 million in free cosmetics including makeup and fragrances.

In a matter of a few months, Macy's, Bloomingdale's, Filene's, Lord & Taylor, Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, and Saks Fifth Avenue will be giving away $175 million in free cosmetics including makeup and fragrances. This isn't a gesture of generosity but the terms of a class action settlement.

According to The Boston Globe, the department stores and cosmetics companies "conspired to sell products at the manufacturers' suggested price only - never at a discount. It also alleged that special promotions were coordinated in a way that ensured there would be no competition among stores."

The giveaway is projected to begin in January 2009, and consumers can get up to $25 in free merchandise after signing a form stating they purchased products at the particular store between May 29, 1994 and July 16, 2003. No receipt or proof of purchase is necessary and you'll have to get your goods on a first-come, first-served basis. Find a list of product lines available in the giveaway and additional settlement details at the settlement's official website.

Will you be showing up to receive free stuff at the beauty counters?

Source

Engagement

Man Must Pay $150,000 For Breaking Engagement "Contract"

Breaking up is rarely uncomplicated, but the stakes rise considerably when one person in the relationship has made financial sacrifices for the other.

Breaking up is rarely uncomplicated, but the stakes rise considerably when one person in the relationship has made financial sacrifices for the other. Rosemary Shell took a substantial pay-cut when she moved from Florida to Georgia to be with her then fiancé Wayne Gibbs. She earned $81,000 a year, plus a 15 percent bonus at her previous job and her new position in Georgia paid only $31,000 a year.

Three days before the wedding, Wayne left Rosemary a breakup note in the bathroom, and later she learned that he was unfaithful during their engagement. Her revenge? A lawsuit claiming breach of contract. The three day trial decided that Wayne must pay his ex-fiancée $150,000 for financial loss and humiliation.

Rosemary's lawyer focused on arguing the broken contract, which I'm assuming is the broken engagement. Are engagements contracts? Do you agree with the jury's decision to punish Wayne for his heartless ways?

Source