| The Lyon's Den
| <-- Index -->
|
- Trick or Treat (aired Oct. 26, 2003). Jack tries getting information about Dan Barrington's death from a serial killer on Virginia's death row.
- Hubris (aired Oct. 19, 2003). Jack represents a friend who is accused of securities fraud. Grant prepares for depositions in the District of Columbia's lawsuit against a gun manufacturer (1); in real life, the District of Columbia's lawsuit was dismissed before depositions in December 2002. Riley is overworked and gets assistance.
- Things She Said (aired Oct. 12, 2003). Jack Turner represents a fashion company whose namesake and top female executive is accused of sexually harassing another woman (1); Turner ultimately threatens the executive's board of directors into not settling on the grounds that settling would be sex discrimination (a very hard case to prove, given the legitimate business reasons for settling fast; the company could also argue that it acted not because its executive is a woman but because the executive is a lesbian; discrimination based on sexual orientation is not illegal under federal law). Riley investigates a former classmate's allegations that he was improperly given an experimental drug but drops his investigation (2) after learning that the firm represents the drug company.
- The Other Side of Caution (aired Oct. 5, 2003). Jack represents a family that wants to sue the parents of a teenaged boy who shot and killed the plaintiff family's daughter. Riley and Ariel defend a teenaged boy facing terrorism charges by getting the boy to testify against an anti-government activist.
- Pilot (episode 1). Daniel Barrington, the managing partner of the D.C. firm of Lyon, Lacrosse & Levine, apparently commits suicide, and idealistic lawyer Jack Turner is asked to take his place. Turner, who is the son of a U.S. senator and runs the firm's pro bono clinic, is already handling the asylum (1) application of a Nigerian woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery (2).
Gun Lawsuits (last updated October 19, 2003) (back to top)
Like more than 30 other local governments around the country, the District of Columbia did file a lawsuit against the gun industry in 2000, but its case was dismissed by a Superior Court Judge in December 2002.
"The crux of this lawsuit is that the District of Columbia and various individual plaintiffs endeavor to hold certain gun manufacturers financially liable for the economic impact of gun violence in the District of Columbia," D.C. Superior Court Judge Cheryl A. Long wrote in her Dec. 16, 2002 opinion. "The plaintiffs' myriad claims herein are burdened with many layers of legal deficiencies."
Many other cases have been dismissed as well on legal grounds. Courts have generally ruled that gun manufacturers complying with federal and various state laws regarding gun sales have no additional duty to ensure that the guns do not get into the hands of violent criminals, and they have ruled that the companies cannot be held responsible for the results of criminals' actions.
If a case is dismissed based solely on the complaint, as the District of Columbia's was, then it does not proceed with discovery, depositions or a trial. The District of Columbia reportedly is appealing Long's decision.
Gun Lawsuits in General
The first municipality to sue the gun industry was New Orleans, which did so in 1998. While this lawsuit helped inspire other cities around the country to do the same, New Orleans' lawsuit was barred by state laws passed afterwards and the city ultimately dropped the lawsuit. In fact, despite what is shown in the 2003 movie Runaway Jury, state law now basically bars all lawsuits against the gun industry for harms done by their products.
Lawsuits by other municipalities have not been successful so far. Several courts have rejected theories that gun manufacturers have breached a duty to the public or created a public nuisance by using improper marketing and distribution techniques that allow and encourage the traffic of guns into states with stricter gun laws and into the hands of violent criminals. Others have rejected theories that guns are defective products for not having safety locks.
Plaintiffs also have a hard time linking the gun industry's actions to the injuries actually suffered. Whatever the gun industry may have done, courts generally consider the person who fired the gun as the legal cause of the injuries resulting from the gun's firing.
Congress has considered legislation that would bar all lawsuits against the gun industry. In April 2003, the House of Representatives passed a bill to prevent lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms when the weapons are legal and are performing as intended; the Senate has not yet passed a similar measure.
Jury Verdicts
While many lawsuits against the gun industry have not survived a motion to dismiss, a few have survived such a motion and gone on to trials. Still, juries have produced mixed results. In 1999, a Brooklyn jury heard the first major case, Hamilton v. Accu-tek, and the jury did find some gun manufacturers liable for marketing and distributing their guns so negligently that they helped cause some shooting deaths. The jury awarded one plaintiff $3.95 million, but it also awarded several other plaintiffs nothing and found many gun manufacturers not legally responsible, and the entire judgment and case were later thrown out on appeal.
Another Brooklyn jury found the gun industry not liable in May 2003 in another major case, this time brought by the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The NAACP brought this case, claiming that the gun industry had created a public nuisance - an interference with public safety and rights - by allowing guns to get into the hands of criminals. The jury was acting in an advisory capacity, and Judge Jack Weinstein then dismissed the case in July 2003, saying that a municipality rather than the NAACP should bring such a lawsuit.
Sources: District of Columbia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., memorandum opinion and order by Superior Court Judge Cheryl A. Long, December 16, 2002. Joseph P. Fried, 9 gun makers called liable for shootings, New York Times, February 12, 1999. Associated Press, Gun distributor held 5% liable in killing, New York Times, November 15, 2002. Dean E. Murphy, $50 million award in gun-liability case, New York Times, May 8, 2003. Robert F. Worth, Gun makers not liable for violence, jury says, New York Times, May 15, 2003. William Glaberson, Gun makers repel lawsuit by N.A.A.C.P., New York Times, July 22, 2003. Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 222 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2000). Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. Ct. of Appeals 2001). Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 264 F.3d 21(2d Cir. 2001). The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, on-line here, has a summary of suits against gun manufacturers, dealers and owners on-line here.
Same-Sex Harassment (last updated October 13, 2003) (back to top)
Federal courts struggled in the 1990s as to whether federal anti-discrimination law covered instances where the plaintiff and the harasser were of the same sex. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals once held that federal law did not allow same-sex sexual harassment claims, the Fourth Court of Appeals held that federal law allowed such claims only when the harasser is homosexual, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal law allowed such claims regardless of the harasser's sex or sexual orientation.
The United States Supreme Court finally resolved the dispute in the 1998 case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998). There, the Court held that federal law was not limited to cases where males harassed females or vice versa and that federal law does permit same-sex sexual harassment claims.
Same-sex "sexual harassment in the workplace was assuredly not the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII. But statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Court.
Sexual Harassment Law
Under federal law, specifically Title VII of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a), employers cannot discriminate on the basis of an individual's sex, race, religion, or national origin. Sexual harassment can constitute such a violation in two general situations:
- "Quid pro quo" harassment, when unwelcome sexual conduct is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting an individual (i.e., a person must either have sex with a supervisor or be fired or demoted). This kind of harassment was that originally contemplated in the federal regulations implementing Title VII and is the kind of case brought against Jack's client.
- "Hostile environment" harassment, when unwelcome sexual conduct or statements are so severe or pervasive that they alter work conditions and create an abusive environment (i.e., lewd comments directed against individuals in the workplace). This kind of harassment was first recognized by the Supreme Court as violating Title VII in the 1986 case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, and the standard for proving such harassment was clarified by the Supreme Court in the 1993 case Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17. Hostile environment claims are not evaluated from the standpoint of the person actually making the complaint, but from the objective standpoint of a reasonable person under similar circumstances.
Procedures
Even if a plaintiff's claim is valid, he or she cannot simply sue his or her employer for sexual harassment out of the blue. Under federal law, you must first file your complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and allow the EEOC to investigate the charges. Many states have similar agencies and follow similar procedures before allowing a private lawsuit based on state law.
Upon receiving a charge, the EEOC conducts an investigation that looks at the record as a whole and at the totality of circumstances. If the EEOC determines that the charges show reasonable cause, then the EEOC will try to resolve the situation through conciliation efforts. If such efforts fail, the EEOC will either file suit itself or issue a right-to-sue letter.
Each year, the EEOC and cooperating state and local agencies altogether receive about 15,500 sexual harassment complaints (about 80 percent from women, 20 percent from men). Of the 16,383 complaints resolved in 2001, more charges are deemed insufficient than found to show reasonable cause (44.6 percent compared to 10.7 percent). The remainder were dismissed due to procedural problems (26.2 percent), settled (9.6 percent), or withdrawn by the complainant after receiving some benefits (8.9 percent).
Judicial Relief
Until the 1990s, plaintiffs could only recover equitable remedies designed to put them back where they were before the abuse began. Thus, you could only recover lost wages, back pay, and reinstatement as soon as there is a new vacancy (courts will not displace a present jobholder, though you can sometimes get "front pay" while you wait). A court also can order an employer to change its behavior.
Now, under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, plaintiffs can also sue for compensatory damages such as emotional distress and for punitive damages, both of which have limits. Compensatory damages are specifically limited by the employer's size (from $50,000 for employers with more than 14 and less than 101 employees, to $300,000 for employers with more than 500 employees), though the United States Supreme Court ruled in June 2001 that front pay did not count against this cap. Punitive damages can run into the hundreds of thousands, but are often reduced on appeal so that they do not "shock the conscience."
Sources: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is on-line here. Particularly useful were the EEOC's "Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment", and statistics. The caps on compensatory damages are in 42 U.S.C. 1981a, which can be found at Findlaw.com along with relevant Supreme Court cases.
Rule 1.3 (last updated October 13, 2003) (back to top)
Jack tells Riley to drop his investigation into the possible wrongdoings of a drug company, reminding him of his obligations under Rule 1.3. That rule of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct specifically states:
- a. A lawyer shall represent a client zealously and diligently within the bounds of the law.
- b. A lawyer shall not intentionally:
- 1. Fail to seek the lawful objectives of a client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the disciplinary rules; or
- 2. Prejudice or damage a client during the course of the professional relationship.
- c. A lawyer shall act with reasonable promptness in representing a client.
Presumably, Jack feels that Riley's actions would violate Rule 1.3(b)(2).
Sources: Rule 1.3 is on-line via the District of Columbia Bar here.
United States: Asylum (last updated October 1, 2003) (back to top)
An asylee is an alien in the United States who is unable or unwilling to return to his country or nationality because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. An asylee must meet the same definition as a refugee, with the only difference being where the person is upon application. As with refugees, a desire for better economic opportunities does not qualify as a reason justifying asylum.
An otherwise qualified asylum applicant is barred under the Immigration and Naturalization Act if he or she had been convicted of a "particularly serious crime" and thus "constitutes a danger to the community of the United States." Applicants are also barred if they participated in the persecution of a person on account of certain factors such as race or religion, if they committed a serious nonpolitical crime, if they pose "a danger to the security of the United States," if they are connected to terrorist activities, or if they firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.
The number of cases filed and in which asylum is granted varies widely from year to year, a result of international conditions and who can get to the United States. In fiscal year 1998, Mexico provided the most new cases for asylum, followed by El Salvador, China, Guatemala, India, Somalia and the former Soviet Union. People from the Soviet Union and Somalia were granted asylum more than from other countries of origin, and very few Mexican applicants have actually received asylum over the 1990s.
Sources: The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Statistics is on-line here. Asylum statistics from the 1998 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (previously available on-line here).
Shari'a Courts and Stoning as a Punishment for Adultery (last updated September 30, 2003) (back to top
As indicated in the first episode of The Lyon's Den, Nigeria and several other countries have sometimes been criticized for the harsh sentences imposed by special Islamic courts that were established in parts of the country in recent years. Jack Turner's pro bono client seems to be based on two cases where Nigerian women were convicted to death by stoning for adultery.
Both cases were overturned by appellate Shari'a courts, though the law and punishment is still allowable under Shari'a law. Safiya Hussaini was convicted of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning in September 2001, but her conviction was overturned in March 2003. Amina Lawal was found guilty in March 2002 after bearing a child outside marriage, but her conviction was quashed on September 25, 2003.
The West African country of Nigeria is a federal republic that is comprised of 36 different states. Nigeria's constitution permits these states to choose to use Islamic (Shari'a) law and courts, and in 2000-01, a third of the states had adopted some form of Shari'a law for criminal matters. Jack Turner's client in the first episode of The Lyon's Den presumably hails from one of these 12 northern states.
In addition to death sentences for adultery, Shari'a courts have imposed sentences such as amputation for theft and caning for fornication or public consumption of alcohol, and lashings for fornication. In the summer of 2001, one man had his right hand amputated for stealing three bicycles and another for stealing a goat. The first man convicted of adultery under Shari'a law was convicted in June 2002, and his alleged partner was acquitted. Still, only one death sentence imposed by a Shari'a court had been carried out as of March 2003: a man was hung after being convicted of fatally stabbing a woman and her two children.
Shari'a courts are also used to resolve civil disputes, and seem to have met with greater acceptance in this context. The U.S. State Department noted in its International Religious Freedom 2002 report on Nigeria that the courts generally have been well-accepted and moderate in their rulings :
| Although many non-Muslims had feared that the implementation of Shari'a would change their way of life, there has been little or no change in the daily lives of most non-Muslims. While some state and local governments have interpreted the new Shari'a laws stringently, the majority have interpreted their laws differently and implemented them with moderation. There also is a trend developing among some sections of the Muslim community to shift focus from the criminal law aspects of Shari'a law to its tenets of social justice and charity for the poor. Islamic scholars and many Muslim lawyers began educating the poor and the less well informed about their procedural rights under Shari'a. Several lawyers offer free services to the indigent in cases with potentially severe punishments.
|
The interplay between Nigeria's regular courts and its Shari'a courts was still being worked out as of a United States State Department report on Nigeria's legal system published in March 2003. Nigeria's constitution (promulgated in 1999 and based on a 1979 constitution) prohibits "torture or … imhuman or degrading treatment" and it is unclear whether stoning as a punishment for adultery would violate that provision. In March 2002, Justice Minister Kanu Agabi reportedly made public a letter in which he stated that sentences given under Shari'a law should not be harsher than those under secular law, but the letter has not resulted in any changes.
About half of Nigeria's population is Muslim, about 40 percent are Christian, and about 10 percent practice traditional indigenous religions or no religion.
Sources: The United States Department of State's 2002 Human Rights Report on Nigeria, published March 31, 2003, is on-line here; the 2001 report (published March 4, 2002) is on-line here. The State Department's International Religious Freedom 2002 report on Nigeria (published October 7, 2002) is on-line here. Human Rights Watch (on-line here) and Amnesty International (on-line here have both issued press releases about Safiya Hussaini and Amina Lawal.
|
|
|
Home / Calendar
The West Wing
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Colbert Report
Saturday Night Live
Commander in Chief
Law & Order
*
Issues
Resources
Site FAQ
Search via Google
Ripped from the Headlines?
West Wing: Santos discusses a lawsuit about intelligent design
West Wing: Electoral map as of the 10/9 episode; Santos needs to catch up big-time
SNL: The Miers nomination
South Park: Inspired by Katrina
Boston Legal: End to assault-weapons ban
Daily Show: A 2004 study found that 21 percent of young people regularly get their campaign news from comedy shows like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Saturday Night Live. So, some footnotes.
NOTE: All photos are copyright their respective owners.
| |
