Recently in Business Litigation Category

December 17, 2011

Drug Testing To Receive Unemployment Benefits


The holidays are here -- a time when we spread joy, gather with our families, be thankful for our good fortune, and open our hearts and pockets to those not so fortunate. I was in disbelief when I read what one party of congress proposed. Mandatory drug testing for Americans who find themselves unemployed and apply for unemployment compensation.

Only one state, as far as I know, passed such a law. The first 1000 people tested resulted in 98% being completely drug free. What a waste and an insult to working Americans who find themselves out of work through no fault of their own. wasting-your-money.jpg There are 13,000,000 Americans who find themselves in this lot. If Florida is any example, each drug test will cost $30.00. Guess what folks, that is a cost of $390,000,000 (three hundred ninety-million dollars) to find 98% of those tested are clean! What a great Christmas present to the unfortunate and to taxpayers as well. Give me a break!

April 13, 2011

We Don't Need Big Government -- or Lawyers Either!


We don't need big government -- only a government big enough to to keep mega financial corporations from destroying our pensions, 401Ks and savings.Big Gov-460x307.jpg

We don't need big government -- only a government big enough to regulate and keep massive oil companies from wrecking our commercial fisheries, decimating our sea food industries, destroying our coastlines, beaches, and demolishing our environment.

We don't need big government -- only a government big enough to keep us safe from pharmaceutical corporations grabbing billions in profits rather than properly testing medicines that are supposed to help us. We just need a government big enough to keep them from lying to our good doctors about medicines they spend millions to advertise that could and do kill us.

We don't need big government -- only a government big enough to prevent fraudsters and crooks from manipulating the stock market and scamming good honest Americans, robbing them of their future.

We don't need big government -- only a government big enough to regulate and develop clean water systems and keep uncaring corporations from polluting the air we breath and the water we drink without us even knowing about it.

We don't need big government -- only a government big enough to protect us from foods that can poison us from products sold and imported from foreign countries that injure and kill our children and families.

We don't need big government -- only a government big enough to insure we have available funds from our payments to Social Security to help take care of us in our senior years and medicare to help with our medical cost.

We don't need big government -- only one that will assure we won't die on the street from a treatable medical conditions because we don't have the money or insurance to cover the cost.

We don't need big government -- only a government that will assure when we fly in planes, the tops won't rip off because of bad maintenance.

We don't need big government -- only a government that will protect us from terrorism and attack from enemies without and within.

We don't need big government -- only a government that will protect our borders.

We don't need Lawyers -- only lawyers skilled in trial to protect our essential Constitutional rights of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bare arms.

We don't need Lawyers -- only lawyers skilled in trial to protect our essential Constitutional right to a jury trial rather than an arbitration scheme we can't afford.
Thumbnail image for images.jpeg
We don't need Lawyers -- only lawyers skilled in trial to help us get justice when we have been cheated by crooked businesses and others taking advantage of us.

We don't need Lawyers -- only lawyers skilled in trial to secure payment of our just insurance proceeds when an insurance company that took our money refuses to pay our benefits.

We don't need Lawyers -- only lawyers skilled in trial to help us get justice when we contracted and paid for a new roof, or even a new home and we are unable to get the company to honor their promises.

We don't need Lawyers -- only lawyers skilled in trial to enforce the law when we have suffered discrimination, unequal pay and denied equal opportunity.

And yet we all fall for the same propaganda, over and over again that we should weaken our government regulations and our justice system because it is inefficient and out of control. Yes, it is inefficient but should we trust corporate America and their CEOs to do the right thing? Government and the judicial system is the only chance we citizens have to keep in check big money, big power, big influence and big special interest. We have never seen out of control until we allow big money, big power, big influence and big special interest to run roughshod over our citizens rights, without reasonable regulation of government and the threat of litigation.

They spend billions of dollars marketing their snake oil, and we willingly take it!
Br Gregory S. Cusimano

January 17, 2011

The Assembly Line of Justice


"No one believes that the justice system can be either perfect or pure because judges, lawyers, jurors, witnesses and government officials are human beings. Nonetheless, justice must be, as much as possible, an impartial and unbiased application of the law to the facts, which means that those who serve the law must be the best we have."
 
What a true statement.  Human beings, be they judges, lawyers, or jurors, are instruments in the Anglo-American justice system.  This system is not a robotic machine, but instead an assembly line of people, each with an important role to play.Justice.jpeg  And if our justice system is flawed, it is flawed only because we, as human beings, are flawed. Lawyers feel the pressure of the expectations of their clients. Judges feel the pressure of getting elected or getting the appointment depending on the system. Jurors feel the pressure of attitudes and beliefs created by the media and other special interest.
 
Even the most successful players in our justice system feel these pressures.  In the 1980s, trial lawyer Richard "Dickie" Scruggs did very well for himself by collecting millions for Asbestos victims.  By the 1990s, Mr. Scruggs had made an even bigger name for himself by representing the State of Mississippi against the Tobacco industry.  Despite these tremendous accomplishments, Mr. Scruggs was not immune to the pressure of great expectations, as Ben Toledano notes in his book review of The Fall of The House of Zeus: The Rise and Ruin of America's Most Powerful Trial Lawyer.   
 
Despite our flawed nature, achieving justice requires an impartial and unbiased application of the law to the facts.  To achieve this goal, each person on the assembly line must strive to set aside personal motivations, such as greed, ambition and a "win at any cost" attitude, so that a blindfolded lady justice may weigh the facts presented upon the scales of the law. Strive is the operative word, because no one can be completely objective.  When those on the assembly line allow personal motivations to outweigh the impartial application of the law to the facts, lady justice's blindfold is removed and our system fails. It happens more than it should, but there is no perfect system. Regardless, the very best from our society must work on this assembly line.  We should continue to use our best efforts to make it as fair as humanly possible , knowing that we will never achieve perfection.
By: Greg Cusimano and Eric Wood

July 21, 2010

Arbitration -- Another 5 to 4 decision U.S. Supremes


Scalia writes for what some have called the big business wing of the court, that if you signed an unfair arbitration agreement and therefore claim it is unenforceable, you still cannot go to court -- the arbitrator gets to decide if it was unfair.images.jpeg

The main question involved is whether one is able to go to court to determine if an arbitration agreement could be set aside because it was legally unconscionable.

The Supreme Court said if the agreement says the arbitrator is to determine if the agreement is enforceable, then under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), the arbitrator will make that decision and you cannot go to court. Justice Scalia wrote for the 5 justices that prevailed saying if the challenge was just to a particular part of the agreement rather than the whole, then a court could decide. So if one claimed just part of the agreement was unenforceable a court could decide, but if you claimed the whole agreement was unenforceable the arbitrator got to decide? Interesting!

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for what some have called the people side of the court dissented and criticized the majority for adopting a position not proposed by either party during briefing or oral arguments. From a legal standpoint it is nearly unheard of for the court to make a decision on an issue or facts not raised by either side. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, joined in the dissent.

The lesson for all of us -- reinforced -- Don't sign an arbitration agreement unless you are sure you know what you are doing and understand it will probably cost you more to go to arbitration than to court.

By Gregory S. Cusimano

Docket No.:  09-497
Petitioner:  Rent-A-Center West, Inc.
Respondent:  Antonio Jackson
Decided By:  Roberts Court (2009-2010 )
Opinion:  561 U.S. ___ (2010)
Granted:  Friday, January 15, 2010
Argued:  Monday, April 26, 2010
Decided:  Monday, June 21, 2010