Below the waist
12/19/12
By Caitlin Tremblay
An ordinance originally approved in October in the town of
Cocoa, Florida, prohibited anyone from wearing pants or skirts
three inches below the top of the waistline, exposing underwear
or skin, in public. Now, according to Central Florida News 13,
the city council voted 4-1 to nix the law before it goes into
effect.
The so-called "saggy pants ban," which was to have taken
effect on Jan. 1, would have given police the power to fine
violators $25 per infraction, the council said at the time, with
the goal of improving the city's image. There will be one more
council meeting on Jan. 8 to officially repeal the ordinance,
but after that it's unlikely that in 2013 anyone in Cocoa will
be fined for ever so slightly dropping trou.
Presidential disapproval
12/19/12
By Suhrith Parthasarathy
Senegal's national assembly passed a much anticipated law on
Wednesday, which will authorize a special African Union tribunal
to be created to try Hissene Habre, the former president of
Chad, the BBC reports. Habre, who took control of the landlocked
Central African country in a coup in 1982, was deposed in 1992
and fled to Senegal, where he has been under house arrest since
2005.
The Chadian Truth Commission had reported in 1992 that Habre
was responsible for more than 40,000 political killings,
systematic tortures and human rights violations. As the AP reports, human rights groups have been pushing Senegal for
decades to try Habre, but the government of former president
Abdoulaye Wade claimed Senegal could ill afford such a trial.
Eight months after Wade was forced out of office, Senegal
has passed the law to try Habre. According to the BBC, the first
step would involve the African Union appointing judges, with
investigations expected to last 15 months, before a final
decision on whether to charge Habre will be made.
Unwelcome words
12/19/12
By Erin Geiger Smith
Certain things an in-house lawyer doesn't want to hear, such
as "Yes, I did bribe that foreign official and receive a massive
financial benefit for the company because of it."
Sometimes phrases are less overt, however, and Dallas
attorney Michael Maslanka has provided the Texas Lawyer with 10
of them that might not sound so bad but should alert in-house
lawyers to a potential disaster.
Those phrases include "Isn't it obvious?" when a company is
discussing why they won't hire someone. Such carelessly
considered words, Maslanka says, could lead to discrimination
lawsuits or visits from the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. Beware also of exaggerated deadlines ("We must
decide today!") and indications that someone prizes convenience
over critical thinking ("We've always thought about it this way,
and we always will.")
Our favorite, though, is one that in-house attorneys are
hopefully more likely to hear from their teenage children than
their CEO: "Everybody else is doing it."
Game plan
12/19/12
By Dan Brillman
In the wake of last week's school shooting at Sandy Hook
Elementary in Connecticut, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D- W.Va.)
wants to take another look at the effect violent videogames have
on the nation's youth.
According to The Hill, Rockefeller drafted a bill demanding
the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the impact of
violent entertainment on children.
In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a California ban
on the sales of violent videogame to minors, ruling 7-2 that the
law infringed companies' First and 14th Amendment rights. The
opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, compared videogames
to books and movies "that communicate ideas through many
familiar literary devices."
Rockefeller takes issue with that reasoning, saying that
videogames are different in how they desensitize impressionable
young minds to violence. "They believe that violent videogames
are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or
Saturday morning cartoons," the senator said. "Parents,
pediatricians and psychologists know better."
A $5,000 treat
12/19/12
By Caitlin Tremblay
A 19-year-old McDonalds worker in Wales reached a £3,000
(just under $5,000) settlement with the company after she
claimed she was fired for putting too much chocolate topping on
a McFlurry ice cream treat she had made for a co-worker, reports
The Telegraph. The settlement was reached out of court.
Sarah Finch filed an application for unfair dismissal,
saying she was accused of stealing food and then fired after she
made the dessert with a generous amount of chocolate pieces. She
claims there is no company standard for how many sprinkles go in
a McFlurry.
A McDonalds spokesman told The Telegraph that the case had
been withdrawn and no admission of liability was made. "This
matter has now been resolved to the satisfaction of both
parties," he said.
Summary Judgments for December 18
Summary Judgments for December 17
Summary Judgments for December 14
Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook