It often seems that a day cannot go by without finding something to truly hate about the NFL. Despite being a football (and Bears) fan, I have long found the NFL itself to operate just slightly above the level of the Barbary Pirate kingdoms. We can add the abusive treatment of cheerleaders. California this month moved to become the first state to require that cheerleaders be paid minimum wage by teams. While lawyers have long insisted that they already qualify for such pay, some NFL teams have been pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars while paying cheerleaders either nothing or the equivalent of $5 an hour. The “Buffalo Jills” for example were paid nothing. Nothing by a time that featured them and pulled in millions for televised games.
Not long ago, this image went viral after KFC customer Devorise Dixon said that he was served a fried rat in California. The company insisted that the picture showed it was white meat and complained that Dixon refused to speak directly with the company. It eventually spoke with Dixon’s lawyer and arranged to have the chicken tested. It was proven to be chicken through DNA analysis. Now the Colonel wants an apology.
A year ago, we discussed a bizarre case where a colonoscopy patient (identified only as “DB”) is suing over abusive comments made about him by his doctors . . . while he was under anesthesia. “DB” had failed to turn off his cellphone which continued to record comments of the doctors ridiculing him, his body, and his character. While the alleged defamation did not leave the operating room (that is until his lawsuit), he alleged that it was still defamation and Dr. Tiffany Ingham and others for $1.35 million in damages for defamation, infliction of emotional distress and illegally disclosing his health records. Well, after a three-day trial, a Fairfax County jury ordered the anesthesiologist and her practice to pay him $500,000.
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling permitting the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) to designate a number of open positions within its prison system that are available solely for female candidates.
The Court held that the DOC articulated a well-founded and researched interest in designating a specific number of female only positions to address issues related to privacy interests of women inmates and to reduce the number of sexual improprieties involving male employees, especially within the state’s prison facility for women located in Washington. The state also articulated successfully the need to employ female only positions for the normal and regular operation of its women’s prisons.
We previously discussed the bizarre case of Rachel Dolezal, 37, the head of an NAACP chapter accused of lying by her own mother. Worse yet, some have suggested that Rachel Dolezal, who is the head of the NAACP’s chapter in Spokane, planted hate mail at her office. Now it appears that Dolezal once sued Howard University over discriminating against her for being white — before she claimed she was black. If true, it makes a truly bizarre story all the more bizarre.
There is another controversy over the veracity of representations of minority status in Washington. We previously discussed the controversy raised by the allegedly false claims of Senator Elizabeth Warren that she is a Native American. In this case, however, the accused is the head of a NAACP chapter and she is being accused of lying by her own mother. Worse yet, some have suggested that Rachel Dolezal, who is the head of the NAACP’s chapter in Spokane, planted hate mail at her office.
In a case that is likely to be repeated with greater regularity in the coming years, a man is accused of criminal damage to property in swatting a drone out of the air in California. Many people view the increasing use of drones with cameras to be a nuisance and have taken actions against the drones or their operators, as we previously discussed. In this case, however, the neighbor of Michael Luzansky, owner of Lucky7Drones, has his neighbor on videotape walking across the street to swat the drone out of the air with his teeshirt. It seems like a rather straight-forward case of criminal damage but it raises the issue of what reasonable limitation should be put on drone operators who are irritating people on beaches and parks with this new technology.