McDonald’s fires a hero

Nigel Haskett was working for McDonalds in 2008 when something tragic happened.  A man was assaulting a woman in the restaurant, and Haskett interceded.  Haskett managed to get the man to leave, but he soon returned and shot Haskett several times. 

Thankfully, Haskett survived and underwent successful surgery.  But when Haskett applied for Worker’s Compensation Benefits, he was denied.  According to the Arkansas Times,

Misty Thompson, a claims specialist with McDonald's insurer, Ramsey, Krug, Farrell and Lensing, said in a letter to the Commission that “we have denied this claim in its entirety as it is our opinion that Mr. Haskett's injuries did not arise out of or within the course and scope of his employment.”

That seems a bit absurd, to me.  According to Haskett’s lawyer, McDonalds says that directly intervening goes against the training McDonald’s employees are given.  They are supposed to simply call 9-1-1. 

While I understand the need to protect the safety of the employees, it seems too much to deny benefits to a heroic employee.  I have not been able to find the outcome of the hearing yet, so it is unclear how the WCB ruled.  It is entirely possible that they will agree with McDonalds that this outside the course of Haskett’s employment.  That would be a travesty, as acting to protect a customer while on duty at work (especially as Haskett never left the restaurant to pursue the aggresssor) should be covered by the scope of his duties.

If nothing else, as a policy, McDonalds should not directly penalize individuals who do choose to intervene.  We shall see.

[Source: Arkansas Times]

How to Fix the Legal System

An interesting talk by Philip K. Howard.

Elections Canada privacy problems

So the Canadian government’s Privacy Commissioner decided to investigate the practices of  Elections Canada.  The concern was that since organizations like this collect such a large amount of personal information from citizens,  they are prime targets for identity theft. 

I guess there was some valid concerns that came out of this investigation, and the main points are produced below.

• At least one per cent of voters lists have gone missing during elections and byelections.
• Elections Canada collects too much personal information on Canadians, including some teenagers too young to vote.
• Paper and electronic copies of voter lists are widely circulated to political parties and candidates, who aren't covered by the same privacy laws that federal employees have to abide by. Stoddart said that is a notable gap in Canada's privacy legislation.
• Such parties don't have a formal way to report privacy breaches to Elections Canada.
• Canadians aren't fully informed about how their personal information will be used.

It’s tough to conduct an election without a lot of the personal info collected by Elections Canada.  It helps determine your identity at the poll and should stop voter fraud.  But the Commissioner is right in that this info is at extreme risk of being stolen.  Poll workers are generally just regular citizenry, paid a fair wage but not one that could compete with the lure of ill-gotten gains. 

Or a situation like this could emerge:

Stoddart cited one example from 2006, when RCMP discovered lists of voters' names and addresses at an office belonging to the Tamil Tigers, classed in Canada as a terrorist organization, which was allegedly using them to find people who might help them financially

That is a concern that never would have crossed my mind, but apparently it exists.  It would be worthwhile to make the changes to Elections Canada as soon as possible, to prevent any further breaches.

[Source: CBC]

Joe Arpaio – Sheriff with a vendetta

I’ve been biting my tongue on this one and just watching it unfold, but it’s been a pretty wild story.  I started reading about this once Sheriff Arpaio’s deputy was jailed for confiscating a lawyer’s court document in court. 

Now the story gets more and more outrageous.  First, Arpaio railed against the Judge’s decision, now he’s taken to actively pursuing the judges who rule against him.  The Judge who jailed the deputy, Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe, has been arrested by the Sherriff’s office and is being accused of hindering prosecution, obstructing justice and bribery. 

The complaint names all five members of the Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Manager David Smith, Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson, Wade Swanson of the Office of General Litigation, Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell, Judge Anna Baca, Judge Gary Donahoe, Judge Kenneth Fields, attorney Thomas Irvine, and attorney Edward Novak.

This is a pretty major allegation, and the coverage of it has been extremely unfavourable.  The Phoenix New Times has been very critical, and has reported that pretty much no evidence was offered over these vague allegations.  This is what the New Times says:

Judge Donahoe removed the County Attorney's Office from investigating the court tower construction, he rejected the notion of holding indicted superivisor Don Stapley in contempt of court for alleged wrongdoing, and he jailed detention officer Adam Stoddard on a contempt of court charge.

So first Thomas filed a RICO lawsuit alleging that Donahoe and other superior court judges are part of some vague and convoluted conspiracy, working together to see that the new court tower (with all those big offices and marble floors) is built and the sheriff's office/county attorney's office investigation is thwarted.

Then they charge the big kahuna himself, Judge Donahoe, with criminal counts.

Arpaio’s office also got a warrant to search the home and chambers of Judge Beverly Mundell.  This is an extremely inappropriate manoeuvre, especially with little-to-no evidence of wrongdoing.  Thankfully, the Court of Appeal has stopped the search warrant for now.

TPM has also alleged that Arpaio is under FBI investigation for allegedly using his authority to retaliate against political adversaries. 

This is a chilling story, and one I hope comes to a speedy resolution.

TV is an essential good

We’ve been highlighting the ridiculous over here at ThinkLegal, and this is no exception.  A judge in Brazi has ruled that television is an essential good.

A man in Sao Paulo brought an action against a store for not replacing his broken TV.  The judge awarded $2,600 in “moral damages”, that is damages suffered because this man couldn’t watch TV.

"Without it, how can the owner watch the beautiful women on 'Big Brother,' the national news broadcast or a football game," the judge quipped.

It’s an absurd decision.  While I understand some of the point of view here, in that TVs are indeed extremely common, there is absolutely no way it can be considered an essential good.  Food, shelter, heat, those sort of things all make sense.  I would even argue education and water should count.  But TV?  Hell no.

[Source: Reuters]

Rumsfeld is a war criminal?

This is a hyperbolic headline, but it’s totally worth looking at.  A while ago, a United Nations official was quoted as saying that good old former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was a war criminal because he knowingly authorized torture.

Now, since this has clearly not proceeded at all it seems like this was a bit grandiose, but I want to bring this to your attention:

"We have clear evidence," he said. "In our report that we sent to the United Nations, we made it clear that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld clearly authorized torture methods and he was told at that time by Alberto Mora, the legal council of the Navy, 'Mr. Secretary, what you are actual ordering here amounts to torture.' So, there we have the clear evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but, nevertheless, he ordered torture."

Those are the words of United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak, and they are rather striking.  It makes me wonder what this information is that they have and why it has not been acted upon.

The evidence is apparently based on documents signed by President Bush and reports from other Department of Justice lawyers.  But clearly this will not at all proceed.  The likelihood of a senior US government official being put on trial is precisely nil. 

But it would make for an interesting trial.

[Source: Raw Story]

Update: Justice of the Peace Quits

A quick update to this post: Justice of the Peace may be racist.

Bardwell has finally resigned his office.  According to CNBC:

Keith Bardwell quit with a one-sentence statement to Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne: "I do hereby resign the office of Justice of the Peace for the Eighth Ward of Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, effective November 3, 2009."

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said that this was long overdue, and I must say that I kind of agree with him.  Bardwell’s refusal to apologize and refusal to step down has been a travesty for the administration of justice. 

I don’t think you can have someone in office as a Justice of the Peace who openly discriminates against those of other races.  It simply does not allow for faith in the justice system.  And yes, I obviously understand the role JoP’s play, but being part of the greater legal establishment does impose a certain obligation upon them.

Now, the couple in question has filed a federal lawsuit against Bardwell.  Now I don’t think that’s necessary in a case like this, when the ‘justice’ has already been served by his removal from office.  The damage was minimal, as the couple was referred to someone who would perform the ceremony and not rejected outright.  But we will see how it goes.

[Source: MSNBC]