Decedent exited the bus and began crossing the street to get to a church parking lot where her aunt/guardian was to have picked her up. She crossed the westbound lane in front of the bus and, as she started to cross into the eastbound lane, was struck by the mirror of an oncoming vehicle. Decedent fell into the middle of the oncoming lane and was in the fetal position when a second oncoming vehicle ran over her. The bus’s warning lights/devices were not activated until two seconds before the second oncoming vehicle ran over the decedent. The decedent died from her injuries shortly after being run over by the second vehicle.

Read full press release via Cantor Stoneburner Ford Grana Buckner

In its lawsuit against the Illinois-based insurance giant, filed in October 2004, the EEOC alleged that a class of older workers at Allstate was adversely impacted based on age during a companywide reorganization. Specifically, the EEOC charged that in the year 2000 Allstate adopted a hiring moratorium for a period of one year, or while severance benefits were being received, that applied to all its employee-sales agents who were part of its Preparing For The Future Reorganization Program. The program was part of Allstate’s reorganization from employee agents to what the company considered independent contractors.

The EEOC had alleged that Allstate’s policy, which was implemented from 2000 to 2002, had a disproportionate impact on employees over the age of 40 because more than 90 percent of the agents subjected to the hiring moratorium were 40 years of age or older. Allstate denied that its hiring moratorium violated the ADEA. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Smith v. City of Jackson that a facially neutral policy (such as Allstate’s hiring moratorium) which disproportionately affects those age 40 and over will violate the ADEA unless the policy is based on a reasonable factor other than age. This case was one of the first to apply the holding in City of Jackson, although no decision was made whether or not Allstate’s policy violated the ADEA.

“We at the EEOC are now bringing more and more lawsuits like this one to challenge company-wide policies or practices which discriminate against a large number of workers,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “Make no mistake: As this settlement shows, we will insist on significant compensation and meaningful injunctive relief to resolve these cases.”

As provided in the Stipulated Order resolving the EEOC litigation (Civil Action No. 4:04CV01359 ERW), Allstate will pay former older employees who sought employment — or would have sought employment with the company in the absence of its policy — a total of $4.5 million to be divided among the class via a settlement fund. The order also provides for discrimination prevention training, posting of notices, reporting and monitoring, and other relief designed to educate Allstate managers in order to prevent future violations of the ADEA.

EEOC Regional Attorney Barbara A. Seely of the agency’s St. Louis District Office, which handled the litigation, said, “Regardless of age, these sales agents would have made good employees in other positions for Allstate had it not been for the company’s no-rehire policy, which we believe had an adverse impact on older workers. City of Jackson makes clear that even though an employer may not intentionally discriminate because of an employee’s age, it can still violate the ADEA if it has a policy that has a disproportionate impact on employees age 40 and over.”

In July 2009, the Commission held a public hearing on age discrimination and barriers to the employment of older workers. Additional information about the hearing can be found on the EEOC’s web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/7-15-09/index.cfm.

According to Allstate’s web site, the Northbrook, Ill.-based company “is the nation’s largest publicly held personal lines insurer. A Fortune 100 company, with $130 billion in total assets, Allstate sells 13 major lines of insurance. Allstate was founded in 1931 and became a publicly traded company in 1993. The Allstate Corporation encompasses more than 70,000 professionals.”

via Court Approves Distribution of $4.5 Million Settlement in EEOC Age Bias Suit Against Allstate.

The agency had charged that Ivy Hall discriminated against a female housekeeper by firing her rather than accommodating her religious belief that she wear a Muslim head scarf (hijab) outside her home. According to the EEOC’s suit, Ivy Hall insisted that, as a condition of her continued employment, Khadija Ahdaoui remove and refrain from wearing her hijab on the job.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that employers make an effort to accommodate employees’ and applicants’ sincerely held religious beliefs. The EEOC filed the suit on September 30, 2008 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No.: 1:08-CV-3067-BBM-SSC).

The consent decree settling the suit, in addition to the monetary relief of $43,000, includes provisions for equal employment opportunity training, reporting of any further religious discrimination complaints, and posting of an anti-discrimination notice. In the suit and consent decree, Ivy Hall denied any liability or wrongdoing.

“Title VII protects employees from having to make the choice Ms. Ahdaoui was forced to make between her religious beliefs and her employment,” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “The Commission is pleased that Ivy Hall committed itself to resolving this matter and to taking the necessary steps to ensure future compliance with the law.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

via Ivy Hall Assisted Living Pays $43,000 to Settle Religious Discrimination Lawsuit.

The suit was filed by Leslie Barkhurst, as a representative on the estate of Kristina Barkhurst, deceased, against Wyoming resident Patricia Skinner, dba, Harmony Horsemanship for the wrongful death of 21 year old Kristina, and fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit, alleging decedent, an employee and student of Harmony, was killed while riding a horse that was not properly trained for the no- bridle techniques being used. The suit claimed the owner Skinner was not qualified and had not been able to complete the no-bridle certification program.

Attorney in the case,  Gary Shockey says Wyoming law has up to now given outdoor recreation companies almost blanket immunity from lawsuits concerning wrongful death and injuries.

Read story via trib.com

Many clients of personal injury lawyers are faced with similar decisions. Will they be perceived as “gold diggers?” This article is  an excellent profile of the situation and the family’s actions and motivations.

Warrenton native Harold Spencer walked out of the newly built Warrenton-Fauquier Visitor Center and tripped over a 16-inch wall around a cistern just outside the front door. Spencer, 73, fell awkwardly and broke his neck. Three days later, he died.

Spencer, a stockbroker who raised his five children in Warrenton, was on the board of the foundation that helped build the visitor center, and his family was not inclined to sue his home town. But then one of his sons discovered that the visitor center had failed its final inspection four times for not putting a guardrail around the cistern.

Read full article via washingtonpost.com.

Vernon Roberts, as the representative of his late wife’s estate, sued Barbara Roberts, his ex-wife, and Dr. Robert John Schiess in U.S. District Court in Rome for punitive damages concerning the murder of his wife.

Read full story via RN-T.com

In making the award, the seven-man, five-woman panel voted unanimously to find that Entercom Sacramento LLC, the local subsidiary of Entercom Communications Corp. of Philadelphia was negligent in putting on the contest that ultimately resulted in Strange’s death.

Read full story via  Sacramento Bee.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced today that Hill Sportswear Inc., of Paramount, Calif. has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $100,000. The penalty settlement (pdf), which has been provisionally accepted by the Commission, resolves CPSC staff allegations that Hill Sportswear knowingly failed to report to CPSC immediately, as required by federal law, that children’s hooded sweatshirts it manufactured and sold had drawstrings at the neck.

Children’s upper outerwear with drawstrings, including sweatshirts, poses a strangulation hazard to children which can result in serious injury or death. In November 2008, a 3-year-old boy died in Fresno, Calif. when the drawstring on his Hill Sportswear hooded sweatshirt reportedly became stuck on a playground set strangling him. Hill Sportswear and CPSC announced a recall of the sweatshirts in February 2009.

CPSC issued drawstring guidelines (pdf) in 1996 to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts. In 1997, industry adopted a voluntary standard for drawstrings that incorporated the CPSC guidelines. In May 2006, CPSC’s Office of Compliance announced (pdf) that children’s upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck would be regarded as defective and as presenting a substantial risk of injury to young children.

About 120,000 of these Hill Sportswear sweatshirts were sold at various small retailers in California and Texas from 2003 through December 2008 for approximately $8. Due to the serious nature of this hazard, parents are urged to immediately remove the drawstrings from the sweatshirts or return the garment to either the place of purchase or to Hill Sportswear for a full refund.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule, regulation, standard, or ban enforced by CPSC.

In agreeing to the settlement, the firms deny CPSC’s allegations that they knowingly violated the law.

Picture of Recalled Hooded Sweatshirt Picture of Recalled Hooded Sweatshirt

via Hill Sportswear Agrees To Pay $100,000 Civil Penalty For Failing To Report Drawstrings In Children’s Sweatshirts.

Children’s upper outerwear with drawstrings, including sweatshirts, poses a strangulation hazard to children which can result in serious injury or death. In March 2009, CPSC and the sweatshirts’ importer announced a recall of the products.

CPSC issued drawstring guidelines pdf in 1996 to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts. In 1997, industry adopted a voluntary standard for drawstrings that incorporated the CPSC guidelines. In May 2006, CPSC’s Office of Compliance announced pdf that children’s upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck would be regarded as defective and as presenting a substantial risk of injury to young children.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to report to CPSC immediately within 24 hours after obtaining information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule, regulation, standard, or ban enforced by CPSC.

In agreeing to the settlement, Kohl’s Department Stores denies CPSC’s allegations that it knowingly violated the law. In 2008, Kohl’s paid a $35,000 civil penalty for failing to report drawstrings in children’s sweatshirts.

—

via Kohl’s Department Stores Agrees to Pay $425,000 Civil Penalty for Failing to Report Drawstrings in Children’s Sweatshirts.

Read full story via TheDay.com