Posted by Peyton Adams.

The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment have been overlooked by authorities many times in the past.  The Martinez vs Denver Police case is yet another time this has occurred.

The Denver police forcefully entered the Martinez house on January 27, 2009.  Instead of allowing Mr. Martinez to fully open the door to determine why the District 1 Special Crime Attack Team (SCAT) was at his door, SCAT forced their way into the house, without a warrant, after receiving information about this home being that of a drug dealer.  This Crime Team failed to realize that a new family had taken over the home since the tip was received.

The Denver police were apparently working on “stale information about the former tenants presumably being into drugs and prostitution and some bad stuff.”  The police failed to do their background checks; failed to do some investigation; failed to show any respect; and, failed to handle the situation in a proper manner.  Instead, the police asserted their power, entered the house, abused their power, and assaulted a family of a mariachi band.

The Martinez family were wrongly accused, but does the Denver police care? The Denver police instead ignored it and didn’t punish anyone on this raid.  They merely overlooked the fact that their team did not do their job.

The jury, however, came to a conclusion.  The Martinez family sued on two accounts: one, for excessive force, and two, for wrongful prosecution.  The jury did not see enough information to determine if the officers entered the house and abused their power, although there were broken windows and injuries sustained by the family.  Nonetheless, the jury found that the Martinez family was wrongfully prosecuted and awarded the Martinez family a monetary value of $1.8 million.

The officers planned on appealing the case.

Peyton is a marketing major with a minor in nonprofit studies and business law at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Fox News’ Harris Faulkner, co-anchor of the daytime show Outnumbered, sued Hasbro toy company for $5 million. Hasbro sold a toy hamster named the “Harris Faulkner Hamster Doll” as part of their “Littlest Pet Shop” product line.

In the complaint, Faulkner alleges unfair competition under the Lanham Act and common law violation of right to publicity. She claimed she is “distressed” that her name would be associated with a toy that indicates it could be a potential “choking hazard” to children, and that portraying her as a rodent is demeaning and insulting.

She further claimed that since as a journalist she cannot be connected with a commercial product, “Hasbro’s use of her name in association with the Harris Faulkner Hamster Doll creates the false impression that Faulkner would impugn her own professional ethics by agreeing to have a commercial product named after her.”

Posted by Michael Ragone.

Recently, McDonalds workers have opened up explaining in detail, sexual harassment incidents that they have experienced while at work. Until last year, under the law, McDonald’s could not be held accountable for labor violations in franchise owned stores. With that being said, McDonalds still ignored all serious instances. Most of the incidents, had to deal with employees being touched, grabbed and slapped, which of course is a clear violation of any moral values. In a video that was shared most of the statements were, “Grabbed my waist, tried to kiss me, touched my breast, grabbed my leg.” “Grab, touch, rubbing up, no, this is not okay.” Some workers were even shown pornographic images from their supervisors. Where in one case, a women’s boss offered her one thousand dollars in exchange for oral sex. This sparked an activist group, “Fight for 15” because of the 15 different claims.

In a recent study, “two in five women working in fast food reported experiencing some sort of sexual harassment ” which is an extremely high percentage. Men and women should be able to work in a safe environment with rules and codes of conduct. In a statement, McDonalds tried to distant themselves from their franchises trying to make them look independent. Fight for 15 is planning protests nationwide over McDonald’s handling of sexual harassment. When women employees went to speak up and report the incidents they were punished with their hours and pay being cut. One of the managers said, “You shouldn’t have flirted with him.” Not in any way is it the employees fault and they shouldn’t have to work in hostile working environments. When you have to live pay check to pay check and barely make enough to get by, speaking up means putting your job at risk.

If McDonalds ignores these harassment claims, their long term reputation and profit maximization will deteriorate. In order to make the work environment safer, there should be people who employees can report problems to right away. The employees affected by this harassment “aren’t seeking monetary damages” and only seek for “McDonald’s to enforce its publicly stated no-tolerance policy for sexual harassment.” This would of course mean that anyone who was proven to be harassing employees in any way would no longer be able to continue employment. When natural law is considered, these workers should all have equal rights to earn a living without worrying about a possible threat to them. This problem is even worse for “immigrant workers” says the Fight for 15 because they are not fully aware of their rights and thus leaving them more vulnerable for exploitation. It is also common that women did not want to speak out in fear of losing their jobs, and of course this would mean not being able to support themselves and possible loved ones. By re-enacting the zero tolerance policy, women will be able to go to work feeling like they are equal to everyone because harassment rates will plummet.

Michael is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Mike Bocchino.

Tom Brady has been accused of knowing about his team deflating footballs in the 2015 AFC championship game against the Indianapolis Colts. The footballs’ air pressure had been significantly reduced to a point where other players could tell the difference. The NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, investigated and suspended Brady for knowing about the tampering of the footballs. Brady fought the suspension in federal district court and his lawyers persuaded the judge. He ruled that Brady did not need to serve his suspension because it was an unfair punishment for just being accused of knowing about the deflation.

The commissioner then took the case to the court of appeals where they did not look at the facts of whether or not Brady deflated the ball, but rather whether or not Goodell was able to cast such a punishment on a player. They looked solely at whether Goodell, as arbitrator, acted in the spirit of the collective bargaining agreement. Judges Barrington Daniels Parker Jr. and Denny Chin wrote in their opinion, “We hold that the commissioner properly exercised this broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement and that his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to confirm the award.”

Basically they agree that the commissioner acted on the powers which he, the league, and the players union had all agreed upon in 2011. So those of you out there saying that Goodell has too much power, the players agreed to what he can and cannot do. Plus, the tampering of footballs is cheating and this is not the first time that Brady had been caught cheating, never mind countless times that he did not get caught. It was only a matter of time.

But overall, the court of appeals did a great job looking at whether or not Roger Goodell stepped over the line or acted within his range of duties and whether or not it was the best interest of the league, which it was.

Mike is business administration major with a concentration in finance at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Matthew Cassidy.

In 1988 the Video Privacy Protection Act was passed by Congress to prevent private information about tape rentals or sales records from being released to the public. The case involves a man named Mark Ellis who downloaded the Cartoon Network Application on his Android smartphone in order to watch shows on that network.

The app is able to track viewer history and an Android phone I.D.; it then sends the information to an analytics company named Bango. Bango is a very advanced organization that can not only monitor customer behavior, but also link user’s information about the user through the Android I.D.

Cartoon Network’s third party partner, Bango, violated the Video Privacy Protection App by gathering personal identification from the Android user’s I.D.  The court weighed its opinions on another case called Re Hulu Privacy Legislation that involved the Privacy Protection Act. This case helped Cartoon Network by providing the true definition of a subscriber to just visiting a website. Therefore, Ellis was not “committed” to the application, so therefore the Privacy Protection Act did not apply to him.

Matthew is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

A federal court has ruled that the House of Representatives, collectively, has standing to sue the Executive Branch over a provision in the Obama-care legislation dealing with cost-sharing subsidies. These subsidies are intended to help lower income people with their deductibles and co-pays. “Many legal observers expected the lawsuit to fail on standing: that Congress wouldn’t be able to show a way in which the Obama administration had harmed legislators, a prerequisite for a court challenge.”

House Republicans argue these subsidies are being illegally paid by the Treasury to insurers and claims the House “never appropriated” the funding. The House alleges it “has been injured, and will continue to be injured, by the unconstitutional actions of defendants . . . which, among other things, usurp the House’s legislative authority.”

Courts hear cases and controversies, and unless a plaintiff has sustained some type of injury, courts cannot take the case and will dismiss it for lack of standing. But here, the court found the House has standing to sue because they are allegedly harmed as an institution, not as individual members. The court held, “The Congress is the only body empowered by the Constitution to adopt laws directing monies to be spent from the U.S. Treasury. . . . Yet this constitutional structure would collapse, and the role of the House would be meaningless, if the Executive could circumvent the appropriations process and spend funds however it pleases. If such actions are taken . . . the House as an institution has standing to sue.”

Posted by Abier Mustafa.

Stryker Corp., a device maker company, recalled its Rejuvenate and ABG II hip implant devices in July 2012 after warning surgeons they could harm tissue around the hip and cause other health problems to its patients. Patients have complained of severe pain, unusual swelling and excessive metal debris in their blood, blaming all these symptoms on the Stryker devices. There are at least 1,800 cases Stryker consolidated before U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank in St. Paul, Minnesota. After facing more than 4,000 suits consolidated in the New Jersey state court and federal court in Minnesota alone, Stryker will pay a base amount of $300,000 per patient’s case. This settlement to patients who had the devices surgically removed prior to November 3^rd.

Stryker Corp. has reported more than $9 billion in revenue in 2013 on the advertisement of their hip implants lasting for years. After the devices failed patients within a short amount of time, the company has now agreed to pay more than $1 billion to resolve these lawsuits. However, “the company said that it set aside more than $1.4 billion to cover costs of handling cases over the recalled hips so the settlement fell into the “‘low end of the range of probable loss.’” “This settlement program provides patients compensation in a fair, timely and efficient manner,” Bill Huffnagle, a spokesman for Kalamazoo, Michigan-based Stryker, said in an e-mailed statement. A source also reveals that a majority of the payments will be made by the end of 2015.

Abier is a finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Avinash Sookdeo.

On February 15^th, Southwest Airlines Co. filed a lawsuit against Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA), and several of its officers, including Bret Oestreich, its National Director, in a Texas federal court. AMFA represents about 2,400 of Southwest’s mechanics and others in related fields. The lawsuit claims that AMFA allegedly helped to organize boycotts regarding mechanics working overtime shifts while in negotiations, thereby violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA). This is largely due to the fact that both Southwest Airlines Co. and AMFA have been in contractual negotiations for four years, despite the intervention of a federal labor mediator.

AMFA is being sued for three violations of the RLA, including Section 6 of 45 U.S.C. § 156, where Southwest Airlines Co. claims irreparable harm. Two counts of violation of Section 2, 45 U.S.C. § 152 was also filed, claiming that the AMFA encouraged unlawful job action and did not take necessary or reasonable steps to stop the unlawful job action. Several weeks ago, AMFA filed lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, claiming that Southwest Airlines Co. has not maintained its status quo during its negotiations, and has communicated information to its union members directly, violating the Railway Labor Act.

Southwest Airlines Co., which is the fourth largest airline carrier, claims that the union failed in its duties “to prevent the workers from banding together to decline overtime work this month” (The Associated Press). The lawsuit comes after the company noticed a 75% decrease from average overtime shift. The company said the boycott resulted in them outsourcing extra employees, costing the company financially. According to court documents, Southwest Airlines Co. is seeking a declaratory judgement, an immediate injunction, and damages for the costs of extra staffing, amongst other things.

Avinash is a biology major in the College of Arts and Sciences and Legal Studies of Business Minor at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ec39df208463495e9d077bec242581eb/southwest-lawsuit-claims-union-workers-avoiding-overtime

http://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Southwest.pdf

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/southwest-airlines/2016/12/16/mechanics-union-files-federal-lawsuit-southwest-airlines-take-leave-negotiating-tactics

Posted by Matthew Cassidy.

In 1988 the Video Privacy Protection Act was passed by Congress to prevent private information about tape rentals or sales records from being released to the public. The case involves a man named Mark Ellis who downloaded the Cartoon Network Application on his Android smartphone in order to watch shows on that network.

The app is able to track viewer history and an Android phone I.D.; it then sends the information to an analytics company named Bango. Bango is a very advanced organization that can not only monitor customer behavior, but also link user’s information about the user through the Android I.D.

Cartoon Network’s third party partner, Bango, violated the Video Privacy Protection App by gathering personal identification from the Android user’s I.D.  The court weighed its opinions on another case called Re Hulu Privacy Legislation that involved the Privacy Protection Act. This case helped Cartoon Network by providing the true definition of a subscriber to just visiting a website. Therefore, Ellis was not “committed” to the application, so therefore the Privacy Protection Act did not apply to him.

Matthew is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Sydney Kpundeh.

A disgruntled New Jersey father has brought products liability design defect and failure-to-warn claims against The New Jersey Port Authority Transit Corporation to recover for injuries arising out of a take-home asbestos exposure. The case’s premise surrounds the father’s daughter, who started to exhibit signs of mesothelioma, which he claims were a result of secondary exposure to friable asbestos fibers through direct contact with her father and while washing his asbestos-laden work clothing. The father is an employee of the Port as a train operator, yard operator, and supervisor. His job duties included the repair and maintenance of asbestos-contaminated air brake systems on the Port’s multiple unit locomotives. When his daughter’s symptoms started worsening, he filed a product liability design defect and failure-to-warn case against the Port and various manufacturers of locomotives and locomotive brake shoes. He claimed that his daughter’s injuries could have been caused by her exposure to asbestos dust created when he replaced the brakes on cars he worked on after hours.

When the case was put before the court, all parties moved for summary judgment. The Port’s argument was that federal legislation and court precedent preempted state tort claims related to locomotives. The automobile defendants argued that there was no evidence that the father’s contacts with automotive brake dust were sufficiently frequent, regular, and proximate to establish causation.

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that the injuries were preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) under the doctrine of field preemption. The court ruled in such direction because they examined a number of previous decisions that had been considered in the scope of the LIA’s preemptive effect and found that the only way to ensure uniformity is that they must rule the same way.

The failure-to-warn claims that the father filed against the various manufacturers and sellers of asbestos-containing automobile brakes were dismissed summarily because there was insufficient evidence of medical causation linking their products to second-hand exposure. “[T]he evidence showed that the father replaced brakes shoes contaminated with asbestos on four occasions over a period of eight years.”

When he was asked about these times, he could not recall the names of the manufacturers of the replaced brake shoes nor could he recount the number of times he installed new brakes manufactured by the named defendants. Therefore, “it was clear that even if the father was exposed to one of each of the automotive defendants’ products over the eight-year period in question, this exposure was so limited that it failed to meet the frequency, regularity, and proximity test that is required for this type of case.” Hence, this is why the case was dismissed.

Sydney is a political science major and legal studies minor at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.