Contact me at markploftus@aol.com

A couple of comments on some cases that have popped up in the news recently. First there is an interesting case pending before the Supreme Court arising out of allegations of sexual harassment. The plaintiff in the case, Nancy Drew Suders, quit a good job as a dispatcher with the Pennsylvania Police because of what she alleges was non-stop sexual harassment from co-workers. Her decision to quit may ultimately work against her. Several years ago, the Supreme Court said that companies can be liable for sexual harassment even if top managers didn't know about it when it results in "tangible employment action" i.e., getting fired. The state is arguing that quitting is not the same as being fired and that Suder shouldn't be allowed to go forward with her claim. [A lower court had allowed the case to move forward].

The state further argues that it is a defense to harassment suits if there is in place a policy against sexual harassment; a complaint procedure and an education program. The state's position is that since these things were in place but Suder simply choose not to utilize them and instead sue. Interestingly, Suder quit in 1998 after she was accused of stealing results of a computer test she had previously failed. She was never charged. Employers worry that if the case is allowed to go forward, they will have to conduct extensive interview of every employee who quits to protect against future lawsuits. Civil rights groups, in response, argue that an employee who is essentially forced to quit shouldn't lose his/her legal rights. I'll report on the decision when it comes down.

And more news from the Why People Hate Lawyers Dept...As reported in the ABA Journal Magazine in an article by Wendy Davis, two Michigan women are suing some Detroit casinos alleging they are compulsive gamblers who had voluntarily agreed to be banned from casinos. But both of them were allowed to continue to gamble(and lose presumably). They are alleging the casinos should not have allowed them inside. Their complaints allege breach of contract(huh?) among other things. Their lawyer says he is looking to file additional cases in other states. [Although I should note that the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ordered a plaintiff's attorney to show cause why he shouldn't be sanctioned for filing similar claim the court called "frivolous".]

The lawyers filing these cases offer this argument: gambling is a disease, like alcoholism. And it isn't nice to take advantage of sick people.

Hey, I represent plaintiffs - people who have been injured or screwed by an employer, insurance company or some other evil empire. I don't like throwing stones at other trial lawyers. But these suits, in my opinion, are...what is the word I'm looking for...oh yeah, stupid. Casinos can't legitimately be expected to screen each and every gambler to see if they have a gambling problem of some sort. I suspect most folks would take that as an invasion of their privacy. And perhaps more importantly, we don't need this kind of publicity. Lawyers are taking a beating in the press every day for being bloodsuckers. These types of lawsuits aren't exactly helping. So I'm hoping these cases get tossed out along with the other silly lawsuits I'm reading about, like:

"I eat at McDonald's twice a day and I'm fat; instead of exercising though, I will just sue that bastard Ronald McDonald;

"I only got 10 oz. of beer in my 12 oz. glass - I'll be part of one of them fancy class actions and make myself hundreds of pennies; and finally, (my personal favorite)

"My child has no discernible athletic talent of any sort and didn't make the team - I will demonstrate excellent parenting skills by shifting blame and suing the school district and coach."

The system is too crowded to begin with - legitimate disputes take years to get to court. Getting rid of these idiot cases would be a step in the right direction.