Ivanka Trump is used to defending her family name in the court of public opinion, but soon she may find herself having to do it in a real courtroom. A California company is suing Ivanka, claiming her fashion line bearing her famous moniker has an unfair advantage.

The class action lawsuit filed by Modern Apparel Clothing (MAC), a San Francisco clothing and accessories company, alleges that Ivanka has gained unfair advantage “from Donald J. Trump being the President of the United States and from Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared, working for the President of the United States.”

MAC argues that the first daughter’s businesses received a boost in sales after President Trump blasted Nordstrom on Twitter in February, after it dropped Ivanka’s line from its store. Trump tweeted:

My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person — always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2017

Political adviser Kellyanne Conway made matters worse the following day when she ended an interview with “Fox and Friends” by urging customers to “Go buy Ivanka’s stuff”–resulting in an ethics investigation.

The lawsuit claims that both instances resulted in “reaped unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of MAC and the Class it seeks to represent.”

According to data from Lyst, an e-commerce aggregator offering goods and tracking purchasing data from thousands of retailers, from January to February, Ivanka Trump sales increased 346 percent. If you compare her February 2017 sales to her average monthly orders in 2016, there was a 557 percent increase.

While Ivanka’s line has notably gained a boost in sales, its also suffered tremendous setbacks. Aside from Nordstrom, a string of other major retailers have dropped her line from their shelves due to declining sales, and the #GrabYourWallet boycott has led many people to avoid shopping at companies that support Trump family products.

MAC is seeking unspecified damages and a restraining order to preventing Ivanka’s line from being sold in California.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Ivanka Trump’s Name an Unfair Competitive Advantage? appeared first on Law Street.

Gay Christians will soon be able to find love on some of the most popular religious dating sites. Spark Networks Inc., owner of ChristianMingle.com and other religious dating sites, has agreed to allow gays and lesbians to use its services after the company was sued under discrimination claims. Two men, Aaron Werner and Richard Wright, filed a class-action lawsuit after they noticed that same-sex options were not available on some of the websites that Spark operates.

New users on Christian Mingle were previously required to specify if they were a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man. Because of this, the two men felt that they were barred from using the website. California’s anti-discrimination law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, states that business establishments must provide equal accommodations regardless of a person’s sexual orientation.

Christian Mingle has lost its suit and must include gays. Christian radio stations will soon be forced to play YMCA by the Village People.

— Mike S. Adams (@MikeSAdams) July 4, 2016

According to the conditions of the settlement, Spark will change their gateway homepages to allow users to just specify if they are a man or a woman. Spark also agreed to create a more comprehensive and tailored matching service for users seeking same sex relationships within the next two years. In addition, Spark will pay the men $9,000 each, along with $450,000 in legal fees to their respective attorneys.

The complaint names some of the other dating sites owned by Spark that the men claim also violate anti-discrimination law: LDSSingles.com, CatholicMingle.com, BlackSingles.com, and AdventistSinglesConnection.com. However, popular Jewish-dating site JDate.com was not included in the lawsuit.

“I am gratified that we were able to work with Spark to help ensure that people can fully participate in all the diverse market places that make our country so special, regardless of their sexual orientation,” one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Vineet Dubey, said in a statement in The Wall Street Journal.

Some people on Twitter expressed their anger, stating that this ruling is a violation of religious freedom.

Christian Mingle is legally forced to cater to gay partner matching despite violating religious beliefs. What happened to the 1st amendment?

— Pissed Off Parker (@LongJohn_30) July 1, 2016

@charliekirk11. The judge is flat wrong. These gay men do not deserve compensatory damages. This dating site is for straight Christians only

— Tinpocket (@echoco2002) July 3, 2016

Although there have been many road blocks put in the way of gay Americans, this ruling signals progress is being made.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gay Christian Singles Can Now Mingle on Dating Sites appeared first on Law Street.

If you were thinking about shelling out hundreds on a new Fitbit to help jump start your New Year’s fitness resolution, you may want to think again. The popular fitness tracking company is under scrutiny after being sued in a class action lawsuit from users alleging that the heart rate monitors in the trackers are “dangerously ineffective.”

Three plaintiffs from California, Colorado, and Wisconsin are claiming that both Fitbit’s Charge HR and Surge models, which come equipped with trademarked PurePulse technology, fail to accurately record wearer’s hear rates during workouts. In some cases the plaintiffs claimed the trackers displayed their heart rates as nearly half of their actual heart rates. By reporting drastically lower heart rates, the fitness accessory could pose a potential danger to users’ health.

The plaintiffs allege that contacting Fitbit about the defect didn’t deter the company from continuing to advertise the product, writing,

This failure did not keep Fitbit from heavily promoting the heart rate monitoring feature of the PurePulse Trackers and from profiting handsomely from it. In so doing, Fitbit defrauded the public and cheated its customers, including Plaintiffs.

In many ways Fitbit’s PurePulse technology, which promises to help “make every beat count,” has acted as a major selling point for consumers on the fence about shelling out extra bucks on upgraded models.

If these plaintiffs are right about the feature being potentially defective, it could have a seriously negative impact on the brand–which couldn’t have come at a worse time since the company just unveiled its newest smart fitness watch: Fitbit Blaze. A massive selloff and 20 percent drop in stock prices have shown that investors are taking the allegations seriously.

On the other hand, the preemptive selloffs may prove to be entirely unnecessary. With only three plaintiffs leading the charge on the class action lawsuit, these false advertising and fraud allegations are hardly indicative of a large scale problem with the company’s merchandise. But who knows, this could end up being the catalyst for more people disappointed with their heart rate trackers to come out of the woodwork.

Update 1/11/16:

A Fitbit spokesperson released a statement to Fortune saying that the company does not believe the lawsuit has any merit. The full statement can be read here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fitbit Lawsuit Claims HR Monitors are “Dangerously Inaccurate” appeared first on Law Street.

A world famous educator has filed a $1 billion class-action lawsuit against our nation’s second largest school district, alleging that Los Angeles schools launched “witch hunts” against older teachers in order to trick them out of retirement benefits.

The suit was filed on Thursday on behalf of Rafe Esquith, an award-winning teacher and best-selling author, as well as approximately 2,000 other complainants. They argued that they were “removed from their classrooms without clearly stated reasons and sent to an administrative office, known as ‘teacher jail,’ pending investigations into their behavior,” according to the Washington Post.

Famed teacher files $1B class-action suit against L.A. schools http://t.co/GUTJfRyBiG pic.twitter.com/hu58ev6PF8

— CNN (@CNN) October 16, 2015

The suit alleges that these teachers’ rights were violated when they were sent to these “teacher jails” and were fired or forced to resign–depriving them of an estimated half a million dollars in pensions and health benefits. The suit’s goal is to do away with the practice.

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) removed Esquith from his classroom earlier this year and then subsequently fired him after a colleague reported to the Hobart Elementary School principal he was making jokes about “nudity” when discussing Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” According to the Post,

The district, which had formed a team of investigators last year after a series of sex abuse scandals, started a probe into Esquith. The allegations grew to include financial mismanagement of his Shakespeare non-profit, that he had inappropriately touched minors, and that inappropriate photographs and e-mails were found on his school computer.

Esquith has denied all of the allegations.

As a teacher of the famed “room 56” at Hobart for more than 30 years, Esquith gained notoriety for his effective teaching style and ability to impact the lives of his students, who tended to come from low-income or immigrant families. He also became known for his annual Shakespeare program, which was later turned into the documentary “The Hobart Shakespeareans.” He later went on to write several bestselling books including “Teach Like Your Hair’s on Fire: The Methods and Madness Inside Room 56” and “There Are No Shortcuts.”

His credentials and reputation throughout the community lead his attorney Mark Geragos to label his firing as a “witch hunt” stating,

They have what I would charitably call an investigative hit squad that goes out and basically intimidates and tries to extract statements from students that they then use for kangaroo-court style proceedings in order to get people to resign so that they don’t vest with their retirement benefits.

Read the full lawsuit below

According to Esquith’s other attorney Ben Meiselas, this is the “largest class action by teachers in the history of public education.” The sheer number of complainants brings the LAUSD’s actions into question and demands for a serious look into its HR practices.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Famed Teacher Rafe Esquith Files $1B Class-Action Suit Against LA Schools appeared first on Law Street.

The horrific derailment of an Amtrak train traveling from Washington DC to New York last week left eight people dead, over 200 hurt, and much of the country worried about the overall safety of these passenger trains. Amtrak Train 188 was reportedly going more than twice the speed limit–106 mph–when it hit a curved stretch of track in Philadelphia and derailed. Investigators have yet to determine what caused this massive train crash, and are estimating it will be upwards of a year before they have any definitive answers. Despite this, a slew of plaintiffs have already begun serving the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) with lawsuits.

Four passengers sue #Amtrak over deadly Philadelphia derailment: http://t.co/BfgH7zo95H pic.twitter.com/l8eskOgZMd

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) May 18, 2015

At least six passengers so far have already filed suit, alleging negligence on behalf of Amtrak for failing to use safety measures like automatic train control, which is a train protection system used to regulate speed. The lead conductor, Emilio Fonseca, on the train has also filed suit against his own company after he suffered major injuries from the crash. The son of City University of New York Medgar Evers College Dean Derrick Griffith, is also expected to file suit shortly and will most likely be joined by other family members of the deceased victims.

Even though the exact number of lawsuits Amtrak will face cannot yet be determined, the maximum payout for the victims already has been. According to Slate, the payout cap for a single passenger rail incident was set at $200 million by a federal law in 1997 aimed at rescuing Amtrak from financial ruin. Slate writes,

 At the time the 1997 law was passed, the federally subsidized company was facing bankruptcy and needed bailout funds. The reluctant lawmakers ponied up the dough needed to keep the wheels turning, but they inserted the liability-limitation provision into the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act. The effect was to shift fiscal responsibility from the taxpayers as a whole to the injured parties by reducing the monetary sum they’d otherwise be eligible to recover in damages through the tort system. And the amount has never been increased to reflect inflation.

According to the Associated Press, in 2010 some California lawmakers actually moved to increase the cap to $500 million, but the rail industry successfully lobbied against the measure. Because of this cap many people who were injured in the wreck, or had a family member perish, may not be adequately compensated for their pain and suffering. That’s disturbing when 20 victims still remain in critical condition in hospitals fighting for their lives. It’s not yet clear if anything will be done to raise this payout cap before these lawsuits make their way to court, but so far Amtrak looks to be 100 percent on the hook for these damages.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will This Law Prevent Amtrak Derailment Victims from Receiving Money? appeared first on Law Street.

One stereotype of the current tech atmosphere is that it’s dominated by young people–those of us who grew up using computers and other devices. Well it turns out that that stereotype might not be too far off. Moreover, according to a new lawsuit, it might be that way on purpose. Robert Heath, a 64-year-old engineer, is suing the king of all tech giants–Google–for age discrimination.

He claims that he had an interview with Google for an open position in software engineering for which he was qualified. His resume included successful positions in the same field at other reputable companies such as IBM and Compaq; however, Heath claims that he was not really seriously considered for the job, and that he wasn’t given a fair shot at the interview. The complaint Health filed states that:

The Google interviewer was barely fluent in English. The interviewer used a speaker phone that did not function well. Mr. Heath asked him, politely and repeatedly, if he would use his phone’s handset, and the interviewer refused, stating that ‘we’ would have to ‘suffer’ through the interview using the speaker phone because he did not want to have to hold the handset through the whole interview. Communication was very difficult, and Mr. Heath and the interviewer had difficulties understanding each other throughout the interview.

The complaint goes on to explain the issue with the interview, stating:

By conducting the interview as described above, Google intentionally did not allow Mr. Heath to communicate or demonstrate his full technical abilities, and did not have a sincere interest in hiring Mr. Heath

Heath was ultimately not offered the position he sought. He filed the lawsuit on April 22 in a San Jose, California federal court. He aims for it to be a class-action suit for anyone over the age of 40 who have been rejected from a job at Google.

Heath does seem at least supported by statistics about the median age at Google. According to Payscale.com, which relies on self reporting, the median age of Google employees is 30, which is certainly lower than the average age of the American worker. It’s even lower than the average worker in the computer science and engineering fields–the Department of Labor puts those median ages in the early-40 range.

Heath’s claim certainly isn’t the first time that Google has been accused of age discrimination. In another case, Reid v. Google, that was settled before it made it to trial, former executive Brian Reid claimed that he was discriminated against and eventually let go because of his age.

While Silicon Valley consistently makes the press for its dearth of racial and gender diversity, age discrimination seems to be a less consistent complaint. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen though–now Heath has the burden of claiming that it’s enough for the court to get involved.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google Sued for Age Discrimination…Again appeared first on Law Street.

For some of us, picking out our pet’s food boils down to three things: price, convenience, and whichever bag has the cutest pet on its front. But a new class-action lawsuit may have owners taking a closer look at the labels. Plaintiff Frank Lucido of Discovery Bay, California alleges that popular dry dog food Beneful produced by Nestle Purina Pet Care is actually poisoning dogs.

According to the blog Top Class Actions, Lucido began feeding Beneful dry food to his German Shepard, English Bulldog, and Labrador for the first time in late December 2014 to early January 2015. Shortly after making the switch, his German Shepard started losing large amounts of hair and giving off a strange odor, ultimately becoming violently ill. Days later, his English Bulldog was found dead in the yard, while the Labrador became ill shortly after that. The common denominator according to the pets’ vets? Internal bleeding “consistent with poisoning.” Since their diets were the only changing variable, Lucido did some research and concluded that Beneful was to blame.

Lucido’s dogs weren’t the only ones allegedly affected by the Beneful brand. According to the lawsuit, there have been over 3,000 complaints online by dog owners accusing Purina of making their dogs become ill and/or die after eating Beneful.

What kibble component could possibly be making so many dogs sick?

According to the Daily Beast, the popular human and dog food additive propylene glycol may be the culprit. The Beast goes on to say:

It’s [propylene glycol] also the same substance that caused the spiced whiskey Fireball to be recalled in Europe, which found excessive amounts of the chemical, also used in antifreeze, in the cinnamon swill last fall. The tainted liquor was from the North American batch because, in the U.S., much higher volumes of antifreeze additives are OK for human—or canine—consumption.

Another potential culprit may be mycotoxins. According to the lawsuit this toxic byproduct of mold is commonly found in all types of grains, which, according to a new study out of Pakistan, was found in half of the 237 breakfast cereal samples researchers tested.

The lawsuit is charging Nestle Purina with “breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, strict products liability, violating California’s consumer legal remedies act, violating California’s Unfair Competition Law, and violating California’s False Advertising Law.”

This isn’t the first time Purina has faced allegations of potential poisons in its products, according to a statement released from Purina. The company defends itself, saying:

We believe this lawsuit is baseless, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and our brand. Beneful had two previous class action suits filed in recent years with similar baseless allegations, and both were dismissed by the courts. Like other pet foods, Beneful is occasionally the subject of social media-driven misinformation. Online postings often contain false, unsupported and misleading allegations that cause undue concern and confusion for our Beneful customers. Bottom line: consumers can continue to feed Beneful with total confidence.

I don’t know how much confidence consumers will have though after being scared by words like internal bleeding, kidney failure, and seizures. Some public relations pros say any publicity is good publicity, but in this case there’s no way Purina for the time being can spin “dog-slaughter” rumors.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Purina Poisoning Pups? appeared first on Law Street.