Lawsuit of the Day, Romance and Dating, Sex

‘It’s Just Lunch’ Date Leads To ‘It’s Just Herpes’ Infection, Lawsuit

By Joe Patrice

4 Comments /

69 Shares

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Linkedin
• Google +

/ May 11, 2015 at 5:22 PM

“So you’re saying you’ll be with me forever?”
“In a sense, yeah…”

“It’s Just Lunch,” which bills itself as “The World’s #1 Personalized Matchmaking Service,” purports to match lovelorn professionals on simple, low-stress lunch dates. If the lunch goes well, the parties meet up again, if it doesn’t, oh well… “it’s just lunch.” Isn’t that so damn clever?
I don’t know if the company’s slogan is backed up by any empirical evidence, but a plaintiff alleged that It’s Just Lunch is “The World’s #1 STD Service,” after a 2011 date went a little too well and she ended up taking home Herpes II for her effort.
Yente never had these problems.

On June 27, 2012, plaintiff filed suit against defendant, [Norman] Weinzweig, and IJL Will Do, LLC, d/b/a It’s Just Lunch (IJL), a matchmaking service. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that she met defendant during a dinner date arranged by IJL. The parties went on another date on or about July 3, 2011. Plaintiff alleged that at one point during the evening, she and defendant both “affirmed that neither had any sexually transmitted diseases.” In reliance on defendant’s representation that he was “disease free,” she agreed to have sexual relations with him.

Go for that deep pocket, Missy. As you might imagine, It’s Just Lunch responded by pointing out that it wasn’t the proximate cause of the plaintiff boning a guy she just met. It’s Just Lunch isn’t like breeding animals where just putting two in the same room absolutely guarantees they’ll have sex — that’s what Tinder’s for.
The court agreed, tossing the complaint against It’s Just Lunch and leaving poor Norman here to answer these claims from this Jane Doe. And that isn’t an amazingly coincidental name, the Illinois court allows women (and, presumably, men) suing over contracting sexually transmitted diseases to launch their suits anonymously. The policy seems suspect. On the one hand, anonymity encourages afflicted partners to seek redress when they otherwise might feel too embarrassed to pursue the case. On the other hand, if STDs are so embarrassing that Illinois creates a policy exception for them, why are plaintiffs allowed to publicly brand defendants with STD accusations? It seems if we’re going down Anonymity Road the defendant should enjoy the same protection, at least until found liable.
Anyway, this case would’ve languished under our radar had it not inspired an appellate opinion a tipster happened to stumble across. The defendant argued that he couldn’t infect her, citing that medical screening conducted a few months before his Not-So-Just Lunch declared his whistle “clean as a whistle.” Unfortunately, he didn’t argue below that he “didn’t infect her,” a subtle distinction that spurred the court to order a physical examination to determine if the defendant has herpes now, regardless of whether or not he had it in 2011.
Oops.
Because if he didn’t infect Jane Doe in 2011, then she probably gave it to him.
(The full opinion appears on the next page…)

Biglaw, Disability Law, Dubious Defenses, Lawsuit of the Day

Are You Allowed to Have a Biglaw Job If You Need to Sleep All the Time?

By Elie Mystal

Sleeping Beauty: Not on the fast track to partnership.

I’m a big believer in forcing society to make reasonable accommodations for disabled people. It’s not too much to ask that disabled people be provided with handicapped accessible taxi cabs and buildings. And a special parking spot. Or whatever. If there’s a reasonable thing that society can do to make it a little bit easier to function with a disability, we should do it.
As long as we’re dealing with a real disability.
We used to live in a world where it was pretty easy to identify a disabled person. “Hello. Hello? Oh, you must be deaf.” “Hey, why are a you miserable cuss who keeps screaming ‘hoo ha’ at me? Oh, you must be blind.” “Why did you take out a hundred thousand dollar loan to go to a school that doesn’t help people get high-paying jobs? Oh, you must be retarded.” Man, those were the days.
Sadly, we now live in a world where it’s harder and harder to separate out the really disabled people from those who just can’t get their stuff together. To cope, I’ve developed my own little test: if I wouldn’t want the disability, it’s a real disability. If I’d gladly take the “disability” in exchange for a cash payout, it’s probably fake.
So let me ask you this: would you take a cash payout from your Biglaw firm if I afflict you with the dreaded “I’m really sleepy” disability? Yeah, this woman would too….

Last week, Bingham McCutchen got hit with an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by a former associate. Hartwell Harris claims that Bingham refused to accommodate her sleeping disorder. Harris says she has Delayed Sleep-Phase Syndrome. I don’t know about you, but I’m comfortable going with Wikipedia on this one:

Delayed sleep-phase syndrome (DSPS)… is a circadian rhythm sleep disorder, a chronic disorder of the timing of sleep, peak period of alertness, the core body temperature rhythm, hormonal and other daily rhythms, compared to the general population and relative to societal requirements. People with DSPS generally fall asleep some hours after midnight and have difficulty waking up in the morning.

She’s sleepy when she shouldn’t be because she can’t get to bed at night and has difficulty waking up in the morning. THAT’S NOT A DISABILITY!!!! That’s f***ing life. Have a goddamn drink before you go to bed. OR SEVEN. That’s how the rest of us do it. And really, if you don’t have trouble waking up in the morning, something is wrong with you. Seriously. I’ve never trusted these “morning person” a**holes who bound out of bed and bounce into work like they’re on the Today show.
Not for nothing, but not being able to sleep before midnight should actually help a person work a Biglaw job. Work all night, zombie through your morning, freshen up with some nose candy at lunch, kick ass for the rest of the day. Isn’t that how most people do it?
No, according to the lawsuit, Harris claims that her need to sleep during the day bothered her employers at Bingham McCutchen. What a shock! Biglaw partners are usually so accommodating when you tell them you can’t come to work because you need to get some sleep. From CNBC:

According to [Tamara S. Freeze, Harris's lawyer], in April 2010, after working at Bingham McCutchen for three years, Ms. Harris was afflicted by Delayed Sleep-Phase Syndrome (DSPS), a chronic circadian rhythm sleep disorder which disrupts the timing of sleep, peak periods of alertness, core body temperature, hormonal and other daily rhythms.
Until that point in time, she emphasized, Ms. Harris had consistently received promotions, pay raises and bonuses.
Bingham McCutchen initially granted Ms. Harris a short-term disability leave, then placed her on unpaid leave and ultimately terminated her employment February 24, 2011. The lawsuit states that the firm refused her doctor’s proposed accommodations, such as flexible start times or telecommuting, and did not offer any other options to accommodate her disability. Ms. Freeze commented: “It is egregious that Bingham McCutchen made no ‘good faith’ effort to propose and implement even minimal accommodations to her work schedule which would have allowed her to continue serving the firm and its clients.”

Good faith effort? Where can I sign up for the job where it doesn’t matter if you need to sleep during the day? I mean, I work on the internet! I’m working on the internet from home. I’m working on the internet from home, and I woke up late today, and I STILL HAD TO BE AWAKE DURING THE DAY. It’s not about good faith, it’s about how the world works given the diurnal rhythm of our freaking species.
For Bingham McCutchen’s part, they claim they were accommodating. Here’s the brief statement from the firm:

Bingham took Ms. Harris’ requests for accommodation seriously and accommodated them reasonably. It’s unfortunate that Ms. Harris selected this course, and we look forward to a favorable resolution of this matter.

That’s nicer than I would have been. My statement would have been something like: “The employee was too tired to come to work, so we fired her.”
Law Offices of Tamara S. Freeze Files Wrongful Termination Lawsuit against Bingham McCutchen for Associate Afflicted with Rare Sleep Disorder [CNBC]

16 Nov 2012 at 3:11 PM

Posted in:Election Law, Lawsuit of the Day, Minority Issues, Racism, Texas

Lawsuit of the Day: Texas Lawyer Argues That Minorities Were Too Stupid To Understand Ballot Initiative They Just Passed

By Elie Mystal

Wait, that’s the wrong answer.

It’s been great fun to watch archconservatives wake up and realize what country they’ve been living in this whole time. Minorities vote too. Single women don’t like being called sluts. Gays and lesbians are everywhere. And people can understand that sometimes, taxes are necessary.
The emerging American consciousness — from both Democrats and Republicans — that if we want government to do things we have to pay for them with taxes, has been particularly fun to watch. In Austin, Texas, there was a ballot initiative which contemplated raising property takes to in order to pay for “a medical school in Austin and other health care projects,” according to the Austin American-Statesman. And it passed!
But that didn’t sit well with some Texans. Don Zimmerman, treasurer of the Travis County Taxpayers Union political action committee, argued that the initiative — called Proposition 1 — was discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act. Zimmerman and his attorney argued that Prop 1 was confusing to minorities who “have lower reading comprehension than whites.”
Maybe so, but I sho’nuff can spy me a racist when I done read one….

If this wasn’t happening in open court, I’d think that some troll made up the arguments offered by Zimmerman and his lawyer. From the Austin American-Statesman:

Stephen Casey, the lawyer for Zimmerman, his PAC and two minority voters, said he is exploring options, including the possibility of appealing to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He argued before Yeakel Wednesday afternoon that the ballot language amounted to “cheerleading” and that minority voters, whom he said have lower reading comprehension than whites, were more likely to find the wording confusing.

Aren’t you just dying to see what language was very clear to white voters but way too confusing to minority voters? Me too. Here’s the proposition, as it appeared on the Travis County ballot (click to enlarge):

Now the question isn’t whether or not you or I can understand this passage. We can because we’ve had legal training, are intelligent, and I just told you in the opening what this passage means.
The question, presented by Zimmerman and Casey, is whether or not minorities, by dint of their particular pigmentation, are at a disadvantage when it comes to understanding this measure as compared to whites. Zimmerman and Casey are arguing that minorities living in Austin can’t read as well as whites, simply because they happen to be minorities living in Austin.
Needless to say, the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, denied the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction against the property tax.

“The court holds that plaintiffs have failed to establish a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits … (and) have an almost impossible burden to demonstrate that the Voting Rights Act provides them the opportunity to challenge the language of Proposition 1,” Yeakel said in his 11-page decision.

The Voting Rights Act is there so people can’t make laws arbitrarily declaring some people too stupid to vote. Luckily, there’s nothing stopping the courts from summarily dismissing lawsuits filed by the truly ignorant.
Judge rejects effort to prevent medical school proposition from taking effect [Austin American-Statesman]

• inShare0

• (51) Comments
• Tags: Don Zimmerman, Election Law, Judge Lee Yeakel, Lawsuit of the Day, Minority Issues, Racism, Stephen Casey, Texas, Voting Rights Act

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/11/lawsuit-of-the-day-texas-lawyer-argues-that-minorities-were-too-stupid-to-understand-ballot-initiative-they-just-passed/#more-206667

Ex-Kasowitz Associate With ‘Superior Legal Mind’ Sues the Firm for $77 Million

17 Aug 2011 at 6:19 PMPosted in:



Lawsuit of the Day:
 Ex-Kasowitz Associate With ‘Superior Legal Mind’ Sues the Firm for $77 Million

By David Lat

Gregory Berry: the $77 million man.

This morning we mentioned a lawsuit filed against litigation powerhouse Kasowitz Benson and two Kasowitz partners by Gregory S. Berry, a former first-year associate at the firm. Berry’s 50-page complaint, filed in New York state court, contains 14 causes of action, including wrongful termination, fraud, and breach of contract. Berry seeks a whopping $77 million in damages — $2.55 million in estimated lost income, and $75 million in punitives.

After working as a software engineer in Silicon Valley for several years, Gregory Berry matriculated at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He graduated from Penn Law in 2010 and was admitted to the New York bar in 2011. He summered at Kasowitz in 2009 and started working at the firm full-time in September 2010. Less than a year later, in May 2011, he was fired.

According to Berry’s complaint, he “immediately began doing superlative work” at Kasowitz. Alas, the law firm was unable to accommodate his “superior legal mind.” After he began seeking greater responsibility in a way that rubbed some colleagues the wrong way, he got canned.

“There’s simply no room in a big law firm for an intelligent, creative lawyer with real-world experience,” Greg Berry told Thomson Reuters News & Insight. “I had to find that out the hard way.”

Let’s have a look at his interesting allegations, plus hear from some tipsters….

Gregory Berry is proceeding pro se. Unlike some other attorneys who have gone up against their former firms, Berry is not represented by a high-powered, plaintiffs-side employment lawyer — like Anne Vladeck, counsel to Patricia Martone in Martone v. Ropes & Gray, or Daniel Alterman, counsel to Aaron Charney in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.

Greg Berry’s pro se complaint — filed against Kasowitz and two of its partners, Aaron Marks and Kim Conroy — is quite a read. Here’s how he describes his pre-law-school career

Please read continued and complete article at link below:


http://abovethelaw.com/2011/08/lawsuit-of-the-day-ex-kasowitz-associate-with-superior-legal-mind-sues-the-firm-for-77-million/