Just recently, in Oregon, a deaf student teamed with the state's Fair Housing Council to launch civil litigation against Portland State University. Arguing that the school made a habit out of discriminating against students with disabilities, the woman is seeking $1 million in damages.
]]> The lawsuit stems from the 2010 school year where the woman argued she was deemed ineligible to live in a certain dormitory and instead banished to another where she was constantly harassed. Because the woman needed a service dog to aid her, she was turned away from one of the dormitory halls because it had carpeting. School officials must have feared the dog would damage or stain the carpeting. The student was assigned to another building where she claims fellow students harassed her because of her disability.She said that, routinely, students would knock on her door. This would arouse the service dog, which would alert the student to the knock. Once the student was alerted, she would check the door but no one would be there. This practice carried on into finals week where it was crucial she remained well rested. Instead, the harassment ensured she only slept a few hours per night. She requested that school officials install security cameras to catch the culprits, but they refused.
She eventually was fed up with the treatment and moved out. If you feel you have been discriminated against and suffered personal injury as a result, consult with an attorney to learn what your rights and how you can protect those rights through filing a civil dispute.
According to the student's lawyer, the school has routinely discriminated against those with a service dog. In two other instances before this one, students with service dogs were tangled in housing snafus. The school faced a 2011 lawsuit where it then vowed to offer equal, carpeted housing for students with service dogs, but did not follow up accordingly.
School officials did not offer a comment on the case.
Source: The Oregonian, "Deaf student sues, claiming Portland State University didn't allow her service dog in some housing," Aimee Green, April 23, 2012
]]>The lawsuit centers on the fact that the owner would order his employees to serve chicken, even after it has passed its prime.
]]> The restaurants receive chicken shipments, and the poultry is not frozen, as is the case with many other restaurants. For this reason, employees must pay careful attention to the expiration date. The shipping materials also provide information on when the birds were killed. Normally, employees at KFC locations are not to serve any chicken that remains 12 days after the day they were killed.Despite this regular policy, the owner forced his employees to serve the chicken. According to the former manager, expired chicken would smell, was discolored and the blood inside and outside the chicken would even start to coagulate.
When the former manager spotted some chicken that appeared to take on a green color, he brought it to the owner's attention, who told him to cook the chicken and serve it to customers anyway. The former manager argued that the owner would almost routinely tell him to serve expired produce.
The former manager and owner clearly did not see eye-to-eye on the matter. Finally, the owner fired the manager, claiming that his arguing with leadership was dampening the team work-oriented setting. One other manager left the job because of the unsanitary practices as well.
While this is the jilted manager's account, both will have their day in court to argue their case if they would like to. However, if the facts prove to be true, this would be a classic case of wrongful termination and the former manager would be entitled to damages.
Source: The Huffington Post, "KFC rotten chicken lawsuit: Former manager says he was forced to serve green, expired chicken," April 18, 2012
]]>The five pedestrians were struck in April 2010 within the Old Town area of Portland. The driver, who was employed by Oregon's largest transit agency TriMet, executed an illegal left turn directly into the crowd of pedestrians. The pedestrians were using a crosswalk after leaving a local comedy club.
]]> The accident pinned two women, ages 22 and 26, underneath the bus where they died from their injuries. Two other men and a woman were struck by the bus but survived.Now, the victims are suing TriMet and the driver responsible for the accident for damages. The lawsuit stated that the woman behind the wheel of the bus was incredibly negligent in her actions. However, in addition to the driver's negligence the suit also states that the woman interfered with the victims' pedestrians' rights; citing a violation of their 4th and 14th amendment rights.
Adding insult to injury, the group is also outraged by the fact that the driver has been allowed to get behind the wheel once again. While the woman was promptly fired following an investigation into the accident, she was issued a commercial license in 2011, allowing her to operate a passenger vehicle that can carry more than 15 people.
Her commercial license was taken away in Washington, her state of permanent residency. However, according to Oregon law, a commercial driver does not automatically lose his or her commercial license due to careless driving charges.
The driver heaps the blame on TriMet, saying that it does not provide appropriate safety training to drivers. Neither TriMet, nor the driver, commented on the pending litigation.
Source: OregonLive.com, "Families of women killed by TriMet bus in April 2012 file suits in federal court," Joseph Rose, April 20, 2012
]]>When the protesters were arrested in 2008, the Capitol rules stated that the building's front steps would not be open to the public between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless one had permission from a legislator to be there. The charges against the protesters were eventually dropped because their attorneys argued that there had already been exceptions made for various events.
]]> In 2009, lawmakers changed the Capitol steps rule prohibiting anyone from occupying the steps overnight except when the legislature was in session. Again, a group of protesters decrying the deployment of soldiers to Iraq were arrested, convicted of second-degree criminal trespassing and fined $500 each. In that appeal, their lawyer argued that the new rule had been made without following proper legislative procedure and was actually an attack on their free speech rights. But those arguments could not be made in court because legislators and their staffs were immune from testifying.This month's ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals will allow attorneys to get to the root of the motivation behind the rule change. They can finally ask the lawmakers, under oath, if they created the new law because they were concerned about public safety, or because they wanted to quell a war protest.
Source: oregonlive.com, "Oregon Appeals Court says lawmakers can be subpoenaed to testify in Capitol protest case," Michelle Cole, April 11, 2012
]]>The protesters are miffed at what they perceived to be unfair treatment by Secret Service agents. They were attempting to protest near an Oregon restaurant where President George W. Bush was eating at the time.
]]> The protestors complained that members of the Secret Service forced them to move and protest further away from the restaurant. This, the protesters said, was a direct violation of their First Amendment rights. To make matters, the anti-Bush protesters said that other protestors -- those that were for the President -- were allowed to stage themselves closer to the restaurant.Accordingly to the protesters, this change in location made it almost impossible for them to convey their message both to the President and those close to him. The protesters who were for the President were able to convey their message more effectively, according to their complaint.
All three judges in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the anti-Bush protesters in the case, writing in their judgment that the accusations sounded like viewpoint discrimination.
One of the judges highlighted in the judgment that the Bush White House used a manual that instructed staffers and Secret Service to purposely place protesters that were against the President far away from event locations so their messages would not be heard. However, the judge did not say whether that in fact happened. If it did, the judge confirmed it would be considered a viewpoint of discrimination.
The case could return to a district court where both sides will be able to tell their stories. The protestors will have to present evidence that the Secret Service unfairly targeted them because of their viewpoints while the Secret Service can defend their actions.
Source: Politico, "Anti-Bush protesters win round in appeals court," Josh Gerstein, April 11, 2012
]]>The girls, ages 11 and 15, asked both the court and the state's governor to take action in slowing pollution and preserving the land, water, wildlife and atmosphere in Oregon from the effects of climate change. Both students were aided in this process by their mothers and a lawyer. The girls were students at Spencer Butte Middle School and South Eugene High School.
]]> A judge in Lane County Circuit court, however, shot down their request and proclaimed it unconstitutional. The judge explained that a court in one of the state's 36 counties was not permitted to order the rest of the state to scale back on carbon emissions.Perimeters for carbon emissions in the state were founded in 2007. The students were asking the judge to instruct the governor to obtain information on his state's greenhouse gas emissions and also change the 2007 legislation in order to reduce it. By not doing so, the students argued that the government was not properly taking care of natural resources in Oregon that are used by the public.
An attorney for the state pointed out, that Oregon residents can petition to have legislation repealed or amended, but the judicial branch did not have the power to do so.
The judge continued on in his judgment to say that it is not his place to decide whether the guidelines established in 2007 were sufficient enough. He said that by one judge asserting their opinion in this fashion tears down the principals of democracy.
Neither the girls, nor their legal representation, offered a comment following the ruling. Many other young students throughout the country have filed similar lawsuits. The action has been spurred by a campaign put on by Our Children's Trust in Eugene, Oregon, a partnership of two environmental groups.
Source: The Register-Guard, "Judge dismisses two girls' lawsuit about climate change," Karen McCowan, April 6, 2012
]]>In Tonquin Holdings, LLC v. Clackamas County, 247 Or. App. 719 (2012), the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals' (LUBA) determination that Clackamas County rightfully imposed conditions on Tonquin's aggregate surface mining operation when it approved a conditional use permit (CUP). Although many of the 130 CUP conditions went unchallenged, the CUP prevented Tonquin from excavating 2.2 acres of wetlands on the property and required the company to protect the wetlands through proper buffers. This had the effect of limiting the acreage available for mining. The CUP also required that the mining operation not "substantially limit" or "impair" primary uses (such as public and private conservation areas, and fish and wildlife management programs) on land adjacent to the property. This condition is important because the property is bordered by the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, a gun club, a reclaimed quarry, an active quarry, rural residences, a dog kennel, and floodplain open space.
On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that LUBA properly upheld the conditions imposed by Clackamas County. The court determined that the impacts to adjacent property should be considered under the relevant County Code, especially since the "finite and unique" conservation uses on those adjacent properties might be eliminated by the mining operation. Thus, the court concluded that it was appropriate for the County to prevent Tonquin from filling 2.2 acres of wetlands.
This case is interesting because both LUBA and the Court of Appeals upheld the environmental permit conditions imposed by Clackamas County even though they extended beyond the applicant's property boundaries. This holding thus recognizes a county's prerogative to limit development based on impacts caused to adjacent land and recreational/natural uses. From the developer perspective, the court's ruling accentuates the importance of having competent counsel during the CUP process. And from the environmentalist perspective, this ruling presents an opportunity for protecting current existing uses from new potential uses. Thus, if you are facing or may face this type of situation, please contact Chenoweth Law Group at 503-821-7809 or 1-866-489-5384 (toll-free) to schedule a consultation.
]]>The plaintiff in the case is a company called Innovative Sports, Inc.
]]> The Eugene company is going after nationally known Oregon company Columbia Sportswear Company in addition to Washington-based companies The Allyn Group and NCS Power. The lawsuit states that the companies breached their agreement with Innovative Sports, Inc., violated non-disclosure agreements and misappropriated trade secrets.The litigation is centered on technology that allows a clothing maker to install heating devices right into the clothing. Consumers in Oregon, and throughout the rest of the United States, have likely seen advertisements for this breakthrough in winter sportswear, coming in the form of heated gloves and coats.
While the Columbia brand name might be on many of the heated clothing products, Innovative Sports contends that it developed the technology and shared it with the other companies. These companies had a relationship in place that was covered by a non-disclosure agreement. The information on this new technology was conveyed to the companies through confidential meetings.
Following the meetings where this information was exchanged, Innovative Sports claims that the two other companies quickly ended the business relationship and disregarded the non-disclosure agreement by divulging information about the technology to third party companies. Those companies also allegedly developed products that implemented the technology. This, according to the lawsuit, was a scene that took place over the span of several years.
Columbia now has a line of heated clothing products that uses what is called Omni-Heat Electric. Innovative Sports said that line implements their secret technology, as did heated jackets made by Columbia in 2009 that are now discontinued.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for the alleged offenses.
Source: Transworld Business, "Columbia enters 'heated' lawsuit," Haley Arsenault, March 30, 2012
]]>In addition to naming the 31-year-old drunk driver as a defendant in the recently-filed $5 million lawsuit, the parents of the injured man are also going after two bars in Corvallis, Oregon that served the driver earlier in the night prior to the accident.
]]> The drunk driver, who was eventually sentenced to 40 months behind bars and three additional years of supervision, visited two establishments before getting behind the wheel of his Jeep and heading south on Highway 99W. During his journey, the drunk driver allowed his vehicle to cross the centerline where it collided head-on with the victim's Chevrolet Cavalier.The results were devastating and life-changing for the former standout track athlete. The man sustained permanent brain damage and now is now in an adult foster care facility where he can barely speak or walk. His fiancé has been beside him along the way, working with him. The victim, who was 20 years old during the accident, was a member of the track team at Lane Community College. That activity is now out of question for the permanently handicapped man, whose parents say the bars that served the drunk driver are just as responsible for his injuries.
The parents of the injured man pointed to a police report where authorities said the drunk driver was visibly drunk. This should have been reason enough for both bars to refuse to serve him. After all, an Oregon statute states that establishments are not to serve alcohol to someone who is already visibly intoxicated. The fact that the two establishments continued to serve the man contributed to the accident, according to the lawsuit.
A police report revealed that the man was eventually cut off at one bar before going to the other where he consumed three pints of beer before leaving.
Source: Corvallis Gazette-Times, "Parents of DUI crash victim file lawsuit against driver, Corvallis bars," March 20, 2012
]]>Hunters and trappers were attributed to the demise of 500 of these animals over the last few months within the Northern Rockies. Last spring, Congress moved to lift policies that protected wolves from hunters. Just recently, a panel of three judges with the United States Circuit Court of Appeals said Congress had the right to do so, and its decision stands.
]]> Congress chose to step in after courts continued to list wolves as an endangered species, even though their population had recovered enough to lift them out of that criterion. Advocates for the wolves claim that Congress violated the Constitution by stepping in and making the changes, thus, undermining the courts.That's not how the Court of Appeals saw it, though. One of the judges wrote in an opinion that Congress made changes to the Endangered Species Act, which is what lawmakers are permitted to do. Courts simply must determine whether those laws are being followed or not.
The situation is somewhat groundbreaking as it was the first time lawmakers have ever stepped in to remove endangered species status from an animal. The amendment was introduced by a Republican representative from Idaho and Democratic senator from Montana.
Wolves were originally placed on the endangered list in 1974. Over $100 million have been spent in efforts to restore their population. Now, the Northern Rockies area alone is home to over 1,700 wolves. A similar move was made in the Great Lakes area where the protection was lifted off wolves in December of last year.
Meanwhile, the groups that are fighting to retain protection for the wolves are considering an appeal to the Supreme Court, but have not yet decided to do so or not.
Source: Associated Press, "Federal appeals court allows wolf hunt to continue," March 14, 2012
]]>A jury awarded a couple almost $3 million after their child was born with Down syndrome. The reason the couple felt that negligence was involved is that they initially feared that their child might have a genetic disorder, and had doctors at Legacy Health System conduct genetic testing to see if that were the case.
]]> Doctors administered genetic testing on the 34-year-old woman, who discovered she was pregnant in 2006. The couple feared a genetic disorder based on the woman's age. However, doctors analyzed some tissue extracted from the woman's womb and told her that the child seemed to be fine and did not have any chromosomal abnormalities. Even when doctors conducted ultrasounds on the woman and found indicators of Down syndrome, they continued to assure the couple that the child did not have the genetic disorder.After all the inaccurate reassuring, the couple was hit with the news a week after their child was born that the infant did have Down syndrome. The parents admitted that if they received accurate reports and discovered early enough that their child had Down syndrome, they would have aborted the pregnancy.
They filed a civil suit against the hospital, claiming that doctors botched the testing by testing tissue from the mother instead of testing tissue from the baby. A jury found the medical establishment to be negligent and awarded the couple $2.9 million. This money will be used for the extra care their child will require, as it is doubtful she will ever be able to live on her own.
One expert said cases known as "wrongful birth" cases can be rare both because testing is generally reliable and parents fear judgment when they openly admit they have aborted a pregnancy involving a child with a genetic defect.
Source: Imperfect Parent, "Portland couple wins 'wrongful birth' lawsuit," Melissa Schwartz, March 10, 2012
]]>One question that often comes up in such disputes is: When a parent gives money to his son or daughter prior to his or her death, are those payments treated as gifts or loans to be repaid to the estate upon the parent's death?
Recently CLG successfully protected the interests of an injured veteran in a trust litigation suit in Multnomah County Circuit Court. In the case, our client and his sister were co-trustees of a trust established by their father. The trust specified that the assets were to be divided equally between the siblings. In dividing up the trust assets after the father's death, the sister claimed that a number of the father's disbursements to the son over the last fifteen years were "loans" (not gifts) that needed to be paid back to the trust or deducted from his share of the trust assets.
At trial, CLG argued that the father's estate plan was silent as to the transfers made to our client and that there were no promissory notes, written instruments, or oral statements indicating the father's intent to treat the transfers as loans. The father kept a meticulous ledger of his financial transactions, including transfers to his children. The ledger listed a few loans to his children, but almost all entries indicated that the money was for particular expense items (without indicating that the money was a loan). Further, the father's attorney testified that he told the father that in order for advances to his children to be treated as an asset of his estate, he needed to execute a promissory note as evidence of his intent. The attorney also testified that the father considered these disbursements to be gifts.
The court was persuaded that the father intended to treat his children equally and had in fact done so for a number of years, assisting both financially as needed. Specifically, before the sister got married and became part of a stable, two-income family, the father provided her with significant financial assistance. In contrast, our client sustained a combat injury during the first Iraq War that required surgery and prolonged rehabilitation. This injury limited our client's ability to work in his chosen field-law enforcement-and so when he was again able to work, it was at a lower paying security job. The court was persuaded that in making disbursements to the son over the years, the father was simply supplementing our client's income during the time that he was injured, rehabilitating, and working a lower paying job.
The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to categorize the transfers as loans and that the evidence established that the father was just helping out a son in-need. Although the transfers to the son exceeded the annual exclusion for gifting to children and required the filing of federal gift tax returns, the father did not file any returns. The court was not persuaded by the sister's argument that the father knew the federal gift tax return rules and that he would have filed returns if he had intended his disbursements to the son to be gifts. Thus, despite the fact that the father did not file any federal gift tax returns, the court concluded that the father's transfers to the son were gifts. Therefore, the court granted our client's motion for judgment of dismissal based on the insufficiency of the evidence presented by the sister.
Although each estate or trust is unique, our attorneys are dedicated to helping you resolve your dispute as quickly as possible. For help with estate & trust litigation issues, please call Chenoweth Law Group at 503-821-7809 to schedule a consultation.
]]>The group, which is based outside of Oregon, attempted to use the meeting room for a religion-oriented event, which would have served as an outreach program for children and their parents in the Seaside, Oregon area. The event was to be conducted from a Christian point of view, teaching out of the Bible.
]]> A volunteer with the Liberty Counsel, a male Enterprise resident, issued a written request to use the meeting room on Aug. 6, 2011 for the event. The man was later contacted by a library employee, who left a voicemail informing the man his request had been denied. The library board adopted the current policy, which states that the meeting rooms cannot be used for a host of reasons, from religious services, fundraising, solicitation and business development to political campaigns or gambling.The intended use for the library meeting rules, per library policy, is to offer free gathering space for educational and cultural enrichment. In light of the recent happenings, the policy sounds a little ironic, claiming that the meeting rooms are intended to be a welcoming environment for everyone.
Members of Liberty Counsel cannot help but think that they were turned down the right to use the meeting room based solely on their religious orientation. The group argued in its lawsuit that they should have access to the meeting room just as anyone else would and should not be treated differently because of its religious message. They cited the first and 14th amendments that grant U.S. citizens the right to free speech and equal protection respectively.
Source: The Daily Astorian, "Lawsuit filed against Seaside Library," Nancy McCarthy, March 2, 2012
]]>The man is now suing the insurance provider for wrongful denial of coverage.
]]> The man is a veteran of the Iraq war, and the insurance provider is unwilling to cover expenses brought on by conditions and ailments he suffered in the throes of war. The veteran contends that while he did suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of being stationed over in Iraq, it was not a byproduct of war as Iraq had formed its own government and was operating as a sovereign nation. This indicated that any sort of war was over.The man served in Iraq for six months in 2003, but took a job with Bank of America in 2005 and obtained reserve status in 2006. As a reservist, he was sent back over to Iraq as a non-commissioned officer. His duty was to speak with Iraqi people and explain the benefits of aligning with U.S. forces.
He returned home in August of 2009 and experienced debilitating symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in August of 2010. He took an unpaid medical leave from the bank and the bank's insurance provider refused to pay him short-term disability benefits for his condition. The veteran felt he was entitled to his weekly salary, which was $1,056.
He tried to return to work after exhausting his medical leave because he needed to generate income, but the symptoms of his condition forced him to resign.
The provider briefly budged on the decision, and issued him payments for two months, but then ceased. A representative for the insurance provider did not provide a comment about the ongoing litigation.
Source: The Oregonian, "When did the war in Iraq stop being a war? Oregon veteran sues over the question," Mike Francis, Feb. 18, 2012
]]>This latest litigation is a part of a quest the Sierra Club has embarked on to get Port of Coos Bay to release information on plans to potentially export coal from Coos Bay. The club wants to educate local residents on how this could potentially contaminate the water and pose a threat to health.
]]> The Sierra Club asked for this information under the Oregon Public Records act and asked the Port of Coos Bay to release 2,500 pages of information. A spokesperson for Port of Coos Bay said the Port was willing to be open about these future plans, but releasing 2,500 pages of information would cost around $20,000. Things like legal fees, payment for staff and copying costs figured into this price tag. This is also a tab that Port of Coos Bay is expecting the Sierra Club to pick up in order to release the information.The Sierra Club refused to pay this money but still wants the Port of Coos Bay to release the information. The club's members have turned to the court with their appeal seeking help.
A member of the Sierra Club argued that these types of fees could be waived under state law if the information serves public interest. The Port of Coos contended that since the Sierra Club wants the information released, it should pay for it, not burden the taxpayers with the cost.
The spokesperson for the Port of Coos Bay also said there are currently no plans in place to export coal from the bay.
Source: KCBY.com, "Sierra Club appeals to D.A. over Port fees," Tim Novotny, Feb. 16, 2012
]]>