The city of Flint will finally replace aging water lines for 18,000 homes, after the state of Michigan agreed to pay the cost of the project as part of a legal settlement. A federal judge approved the deal on Tuesday and said that the job will have to be completed by 2020. Around 700 homes have already had their pipes replaced.

The costs will be covered by a combination of state and federal funds. Michigan will pay $87 million, and put $10 million aside for unforeseen costs. Part of the project will also be funded by the $100 million that Flint was granted by Congress at the end of last year, but some of that money will also be used to update Flint’s water treatment plant.

Residents and activists that brought the lawsuit are relieved to finally see some action. “The greatest lesson I’ve learned from Flint’s water crisis is that change only happens when you get up and make your voice heard,” said Melissa Mays, one of the plaintiffs and one of the first people who alerted officials after realizing that something was wrong with the city’s water.

Progress!!! The fight isn’t over yet but this a HUGE win for us #FlintWaterCrisis https://t.co/8PNHMPluDX

— Little Miss Flint (@LittleMissFlint) March 27, 2017

In 2014 it was discovered that tap water in Flint was contaminated, after the city stopped extracting its water from Lake Huron and, in an effort to save money, started taking it from the Flint River. It turned out that the water was so corrosive that it quickly eroded the city’s water pipes, collecting iron, lead, and other metals on its way to residents’ homes. Lead is dangerous and can cause long-term physical and mental damage. A dozen people have died from Legionnaires’ disease in the city.

In December 2016, Michigan’s attorney general announced felony charges against two former Flint emergency managers and two other former city officials, saying, “All too prevalent in this Flint Water Investigation was a priority on balance sheets and finances rather than health and safety of the citizens of Flint.” The politicians’ decision to switch water sources to save $5 million resulted in a loss of over $1.5 billion, according to estimates.

A) it only took 3 years to get the ruling
B) 2020?!?!?! Wtf https://t.co/pPqSHOuhX7

— Tatiana Torres (@princessdeleon) March 27, 2017

As part of the agreement the state must also keep providing residents with free bottled water and conduct inspections to ensure that residents have proper filters installed on their taps–and provide such filters for free. Other aspects of the settlement include new water monitoring requirements and that the state maintains current Medicaid funding levels.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Flint to Replace 18,000 Water Lines, Michigan Agrees to Pay $97 Million appeared first on Law Street.

Walmart has agreed to pay $7.5 million in order to settle a lawsuit that claims the company discriminated against thousands of gay employees.

The lawsuit alleged that Walmart denied spousal health insurance benefits to same-sex employees between 2011 and 2013. The company said the settlement will benefit “no more than a few thousand current and former Walmart associates.”

Jacqueline A. Cote, who has worked for the retail giant since 1999 in Maine and Massachusetts, filed the lawsuit last year after she was repeatedly denied coverage for her  ailing wife. In 2012, Cote’s wife, Diana Smithson, was diagnosed with cancer. Since Walmart denied her health insurance benefits, the couple racked up more than $150,000 in debt. Smithson passed away in March.

The lawsuit alleged that Walmart violated the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Law.

As per the settlement, Walmart denies all allegations brought forth in the lawsuit, but chose to settle, “in the interest of resolving this dispute between the parties without the significant expense, delay and inconvenience of further litigation.”

Cote, who was pleased by the lawsuit’s outcome, said in a statement, “It’s a relief to bring this chapter of my life to a close.”

Walmart began offering health benefits for same-sex couples in 2014 after the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act; prior to that Walmart only offered benefits to employees’ domestic partners in states where it was required to do so by law.

In an effort to increase inclusion, the company recently announced that it will be extending its health insurance to cover transgender employees this year. On Monday, the company received a perfect 100 score from Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, the group’s annual ranking of companies’ workplace protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees.

According to Reuters, Sally Welborn, a senior vice president at the Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, said in a statement that diversity and inclusion were among the company’s core values.

“We will continue to not distinguish between same and opposite sex spouses when it comes to the benefits we offer under our health insurance plan,” she said.

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 Walmart Agrees to Pay $7.5 Million Settlement in Same-Sex Benefits Case appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Donald Trump has reached a multimillion dollar settlement in the fraud cases against his now-defunct for profit Trump University. Trump will pay a reported $25 million settle the case, and will pay up to $1 million in penalties to the State of New York for violating state education laws.

There were three lawsuits pending against Trump University; two class action suits in California and one case brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. According to Reuters, all of the cases would be covered in the settlement.

Schneiderman has said that more than 5,000 students were defrauded out of $40 million after paying up to $35,000 to learn all of Trump’s real estate investing “secrets” from his “hand-picked” instructors.

Trump’s settlement comes across a bit ironic; Trump has said many times that he doesn’t settle cases. In fact, at the Republican presidential debate in Detroit, Trump said:

I don’t settle cases. I don’t do it because that’s why I don’t get sued very often, because I don’t settle, unlike a lot of other people.

However, he seems to have reconsidered his staunch stance.

So the orange sleazeball is going to avoid trial on the Trump U case! Settlement with no admission of guilt. What a load of crap!

— philip harris (@pharris830) November 18, 2016

U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel urged both parties to settle. He is the same judge that Trump claimed couldn’t be impartial in the case because he was “of Mexican heritage.”

Trump has categorically denied any wrongdoing in the case, and even claimed that 98% of the people who signed up for the courses expressed satisfaction with them.

A spokesperson for Schneiderman said he “has always been open to a settlement that fairly compensates the many victims of Trump University who have been waiting years for a resolution.”

Interviewer: so it says here you went to TU? What school is that?

Trump University

Interviewer: pic.twitter.com/J9WJCu5pXK

— Kevin Flood (@FLOOKLYN) November 18, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald “I Never Settle” Trump Reaches Settlement in University Fraud Case appeared first on Law Street.

After suffering through domestic violence accusations, damning photos and text messages, and a restraining order, Amber Heard has made good on her promise and has given away her $7 million divorce settlement with Johnny Depp to charity.

Amber Heard Is Donating All $7 Million Of Her Johnny Depp Divorce Settlement https://t.co/zosgwOYF7h pic.twitter.com/aMX48OIfWM

— Elite Daily (@EliteDaily) August 19, 2016

Heard announced the decision in a statement to Buzzfeed Thursday, saying the divorce with Depp was never about the money and that she hopes the money goes to people “less able to defend themselves.”

According to Buzzfeed, Heard said the large donation “will be divided equally between the ACLU, with a particular focus to stop violence against women, and the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, where I have worked as a volunteer for the past 10 years alongside organizations like the Art of Elysium.”

Heard filed for divorce in May, and later obtained a temporary restraining order that alleges Depp hit her during a fight in their Los Angeles apartment that same month. Her allegations looked pretty convincing as she walked into an L.A. courtroom with a bruise on her right cheek below the eye.

Depp, who has stayed relatively silent over the course of the divorce proceedings, has yet to release a statement and is probably under orders from his publicist to avoid the media at all costs. Why? Perhaps because its unclear if his career will recover from the domestic violence scandal. Former fans are still trying to figure out if they can forget forgive his domestic violence allegations and justify spending more money to see him in another “Pirates” sequel or freaky Tim Burton gothic comedy.

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 Amber Heard Donates $7 Million Divorce Settlement to Charity appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the city of Cleveland agreed to pay a $6 million settlement to the family of Tamir Rice, the 12-year-old black boy who was shot by a white police office in November 2014. Sadly, the case’s conclusion was overshadowed by an open letter from the Cleveland police union suggesting that the Rice family use the money to educate kids on gun safety.

Stephen Loomis, the president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, released the following letter to the media Monday in response to the settlement.

Cleveland’s police union president hopes #TamirRice‘s family uses part of the settlement to educate kids about guns pic.twitter.com/9sfYIOdSH2

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) April 25, 2016

The letter in full reads:

We have maintained from the onset this has been an absolute tragedy for the Rice family as well as our involved Officers and their families. Our hearts continue to be with them.

We can only hope the Rice family and their attorneys will use a portion of this settlement to help educate the youth of Cleveland in the dangers associated with the mishandling of both real and facsimile firearms. Something positive must come from this tragic loss. That would be educating youth of the dangers of possessing a real or replica firearm.

We look forward to the possibility of working with the Rice family to achieve this common goal.

The letter is clearly referencing the fact that the officers involved in Tamir’s death, Officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback, had mistook the “realistic looking” toy pellet gun he was holding for a real firearm.

Loehmann and Garmback had responded to the Cudell Recreation Center on November 22, 2014 after receiving a 911 call stating that a “black male was sitting on a swing pointing a gun at people.” The caller told the dispatcher that the gun was “probably fake” and the male was “probably a juvenille,” but that information was never relayed.

It resulted in Loehmann shooting Tamir within two seconds of exiting his squad car. A grand jury decided not to indict Loehmann on criminal charges, but the family’s wrongful death lawsuit alleged that the city was negligent in Tamir’s death.

Following the shooting, Loomis had made several controversial comments effectively blaming Tamir for his own death, with an emphasis on the perceived threat that toy guns pose to officers.

Cleveland.com received an email statement from Subodh Chandra, an attorney representing the Rice family, blasting Loomis’ “victim blaming” themed release. Chandra said Loomis’ comment, “reflect all that is wrong with Cleveland’s police division — he managed to (1) blame the victim, (2) equate the loss of the life of a 12-year-old child with the officers facing scrutiny, and (3) demand money from the victim’s family and counsel.”

He went on to add,

Loomis’s continued posturing shows he and the union still don’t comprehend that the police division needs a cultural change — not hiring incompetents, better training, and greater accountability.

Despite Loomis’s comments, the settlement was a small victory for the family who will never receive proper compensation for death of Tamir. As far as the settlement specifics go, the city will have to pay $3 million of the settlement this year, and another $3 million next year. Of that $6 million settlement, $5.5 million of it will actually be awarded to the estate to be divided among family members.

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 Police Union Hopes Rice Family Uses $6M Settlement for Gun Education appeared first on Law Street.

Uber recently reached a settlement with its drivers in California and Massachusetts in two lawsuits that could have derailed the company’s entire business model. While both sides gave important concessions in the settlement, Uber maintains the ability to classify its drivers as independent contractors in both states, a win that will prevent the company’s costs from skyrocketing.

If approved by a district court judge, the settlement will resolve two class action lawsuits against Uber that originated in California and Massachusetts. Drivers will remain independent contractors and Uber has agreed to pay the plaintiffs $84 million with an additional $16 million contingent upon the company going public and increasing significantly in value.

If Uber drivers were granted employee status, Uber would have been required to pay minimum wage, reimburse expenses, provide health benefits, and pay the employer portion of social security. A report from the National Employment Law Project estimates that classifying workers as contractors can save companies as much as 30 percent on payroll and related taxes and can significantly reduce the amount they are paid.

The settlement will also require Uber to change its driver deactivation policies. The issued a deactivation policy explaining what factors can lead to deactivation and will provide additional information to drivers in Massachusetts and California about their rating and how it compares to other drivers. With the settlement, Uber agreed to create and help fund a drivers association that will meet quarterly and function somewhat like a union. Drivers will also be allowed to put up signs asking riders for tips.

However, the court’s approval of the settlement is not guaranteed. In fact, a similar settlement involving the company’s competitor, Lyft, was recently rejected by a judge. That settlement was rejected because the proposed amount, $12.25 million, was based on an outdated expense reimbursement estimate. The judge argued that the settlement would need to increase significantly to meet estimates from more recent data. Underlying that case are similar questions: should drivers be considered employees and are they entitled to reimbursements?

Overall, the recent settlement appears to be a large victory for Uber. The company was valued at $62.5 billion in December, making the $100 million settlement relatively manageable in the context of the company’s size. Uber will also continue to keep its costs remarkably low as it continues to classify its drivers as independent contractors. Drivers will get some important concessions from the company and Uber is openly acknowledging that it needs to evolve in the way it manages its drivers as the company grows.

In a blog post after the settlement was reached, Uber CEO and Co-Founder Travis Kalanick wrote,

Six years ago when Uber first started in San Francisco, it was easy to communicate with the handful of drivers using the app. Austin Geidt, who ran marketing, called each one regularly to get their feedback and make sure things were working well. It was clear from those early conversations that drivers really valued the freedom Uber offered.

Kalanick also notes that the company now has over 450,000 drivers using the app each month. Given the dramatic increase in the company’s size, it is seeking to improve the way it receives and responds to feedback from drivers while clarifying its deactivation policies.

Despite the settlement, many questions remain about worker classification for so-called “gig economy” jobs. The settlement resolves a dispute between drivers in the two states, but it doesn’t answer the question altogether. Moreover, a settlement will not leave a precedent in the way a decision from a federal judge would. Regulators also retain the ability to change classification standards, which would have a dramatic impact on these businesses.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Agrees to $100 Million Settlement With Drivers appeared first on Law Street.

This week, news became public that the daughter of late action star Paul Walker is receiving a $10.1 million settlement from the estate of the man, Roger Rodas, who was driving the car when it crashed, killing both Walker and Rodas.

The settlement was decided in November of 2014, roughly a year after Walker’s death, but the information about it wasn’t made public until this week. According to court documents, $7.2 million of the money is in a trust for Meadow Walker, 17, the rest went toward legal fees. However that $10 million-plus settlement is just a “fraction of what her father would have earned as an international movie star had his life not been tragically cut short.”

USA Today reports that Rodas’s estate released the following statement:

Through his estate, Mr. Rodas, the driver of the car, took partial responsibility for the crash. Meadow’s lawsuit against Porsche AG – a $13 billion corporation – intends to hold the company responsibly for producing a vehicle that was defective and caused Paul Walker’s death.

That lawsuit, brought by Meadow Walker’s lawyers against Porsche, is still ongoing. She is accusing the German-based carmaker of skimping on safety features that could have saved her father’s life.

Porsche claims that Walker’s death was Rodas’s fault for driving too quickly, particularly after an investigation conducted by Los Angeles police pointed to speed as the catalyst of the accident. Porsche has also alleged that the vehicle wasn’t properly operated or maintained. But Walker claims that the vehicle wasn’t going as fast as the investigation alleged; additionally Walker is arguing that had the Porsche been safer, her father wouldn’t have been severely burned after the crash–which ultimately led to his death. However it’s unclear if Walker’s lawsuit against Porsche will be successful–a similar lawsuit brought by Rodas’s widow ruled in favor of Porsche recently, stating: “Plaintiff has provided no competent evidence that Rodas’ death occurred as a result of any wrongdoing on the part of Defendant.”

For Meadow Walker, it’s all presumably bittersweet–while the money set aside in a trust for her will ensure that she has enough to live on, it’s certainly less than her father would have made had he not lost his life in the tragic 2013 crash, and can’t replace him.

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 Paul Walker’s Daughter Awarded Settlement Money for Father’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

After a two year investigation into complaints of civil rights and health violations, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a $4 million settlement for former employees at the Sara Lee factory located in Paris, Texas. This case marks the largest settlement in EEOC history involving a hostile work environment. The EEOC took on the case after twenty-five workers filed complaints against the company during their time at the now-shuttered factory, which closed in 2011. Attorneys now estimate that over seventy employees stand to benefit from the settlement. In addition to financial reparations, the company will be required to implement measures to prevent workplace discrimination and to submit regular reports to the EEOC. Read on for a look inside the landmark case.

The Allegations Against Sara Lee

The EEOC’s two year investigation found that black employees were targets of intimidation and were denied promotions that went to their white peers. Black employees reported racial slurs and graffiti during their time at the factory, incidents which were corroborated by the EEOC. A lawsuit filed separately from the EEOC complaint revealed that the graffiti included racial slurs, threats, and crude drawings of apes and black men with nooses. A large portion of the alleged abuse came from white supervisors within the factory and several Sara Lee officials have been accused of ignoring complaints from black employees about the conditions within the factory. In addition, workers were reportedly exposed to black mold asbestos and other toxins during their daily work. The working conditions were so hazardous that:

One of the cake lines was nicknamed the ‘cancer line,’ because so many people were getting sick, said Sara Kane, one of the workers’ attorneys, of the law office Valli, Kane & Vagnini.

According to the investigation, black employees were exposed to these conditions while their white colleagues were promoted to positions located in safer areas of the factory. These white employees were allegedly often less-experienced than their black co-workers but they received promotions nevertheless.

According to the EEOC’s report, several black employees contracted cancer and other diseases as a direct result of their exposure to toxins in the workplace. When black employees reported their diseases to management, their complaints were either ignored or dismissed as being unrelated to working conditions within the factory. The closure of the factory in 2011 meant that the EEOC had relatively limited exposure to the physical conditions of the factory, so the investigation did rely heavily on interviews with employees.

 The Role of the EEOC

The EEOC enforces federal laws against discrimination in most companies with 15 employees or more (although this can vary according to certain jurisdictions and circumstances). The EEOC processes both private sector and federal sector violations of discrimination laws, although it takes a more active investigative role in private sector cases. There are two distinct private sector and a federal sector mediation programs, which each offer dispute resolution with EEOC cooperation. If conciliation cannot resolve a private sector dispute, the EEOC has the right to pursue litigation and also has a right to participate in an ongoing lawsuit. According to the EEOC website,

The EEOC has the authority to investigate charges of discrimination against employers who are covered by the law. Our role in an investigation is to fairly and accurately assess the allegations in the charge and then make a finding. If we find that discrimination has occurred, we will try to settle the charge. If we aren’t successful, we have the authority to file a lawsuit to protect the rights of individuals and the interests of the public. We do not, however, file lawsuits in all cases where we find discrimination.

The EEOC may handle tens of thousands of complaints every year, but they very rarely escalate to the heights that the Sara Lee case has, which makes the future of Sara Lee critically important. If Sara Lee complies with the EEOC regulations and actively changes its workplace environment in the coming years, it will serve as a model for other companies that have had large-scale reports of discrimination. The successful transformation of the Sara Lee case will lie with its parent company–Tyson Foods.

A New Name and a New Brand

In 2012, so chronologically after the alleged abuse occurred, Sara Lee went through a major re-branding, effectively splitting the business in two. The food side of the business was labeled Hillshire Brands while the tea and coffee end of the company (centered in Europe) was named D.E. Master Blenders 1753. The name change was speculated to have been prompted by lackluster sales of meat products.

In 2014, Hillshire Brands completed a merger with Tyson Foods, Inc. which The Wall Street Journal referred to as the “meat industry’s biggest deal.” After the merger, Hillshire’s chief executive Sean Connolly stepped down, clearing the way for new leadership. However, the Sara Lee discrimination case did not disappear with the name change. Although headlines associate the case with Sara Lee, Tyson is now liable for the settlement and for rebuilding the brand’s image in the wake of the EEOC investigation. In an interview with Buzzfeed News, Tyson Foods spokesperson Worth Sparkman said the company is

‘Committed to treating our team members with dignity and respect and have a policy against harassment and discrimination,’ noting Tyson Foods requires annual training and offers a toll-free help line for workers to report any concerns without fear of retaliation. ‘While we don’t agree with all of the allegations in this case, we oppose any unlawful discrimination in the workplace and believe it makes sense to resolve this matter,’ Sparkman wrote in an email. When asked which allegations the company disagrees with Sparkman said, via email, ‘We’ll point out that any alleged conduct in this case occurred before portions of Sara Lee were acquired by Tyson Foods in 2014.’

The Tyson brand has also had a series of legal skirmishes over working conditions over the past few years. This November, the Supreme Court heard a case against Tyson in which employees argued that Tyson unlawfully failed to pay for the time it took them to put on and then remove safety equipment during their daily tasks. In a lower court, employees were awarded half of what their counsel requested. The case has raised interesting questions about collective action lawsuits, as the case involves more than 3,000 workers in total: Should that many employees be allowed to file their complaint at one time, in a single case?

The Supreme Court has approached the case less as an issue of wage violations and more as a debate over what the threshold should be for the number of participants in a collective action lawsuit. Yet, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the employees, Tyson may pay out even more than they it in the Sara Lee case–approximately $6 million.

Conclusion

The Sara Lee case is a unique one in that a significant number of workers were courageous enough to file complaints and patient enough to wait for the legislative process to work over several years. Not every discrimination case is investigated by the EEOC, either because there is not sufficient evidence or because victims do not feel safe reporting misconduct. Hopefully, the Sara Lee case will inspire other companies to enact preventative measures to disband discrimination. The EEOC has delivered a decisive victory for the employees of the Texas factory, and we’ll have to see what effects it might have in future discrimination cases.

Resources

CBS Dallas Forth Worth: $4M Settlement Awarded In Sara Lee Discrimination Case

The Chicago Tribune: Sara Lee Discriminated Against Black Employees, Attorneys Say

Dallas Business Journal: EEOC Wins Record Settlement for Former Texas-based Sara Lee Factory Workers

Buzzfeed: Sara Lee Will Pay $4 Million To Settle Racial Discrimination Suit

Business Insider: Turning Sara Lee Into Hillshire Brands Is A Perfect Example Of How Not To Name A Company

The Wall Street Journal: Tyson Completes Acquisition of Hillshire

EEOC: Overview

JD Supra: United States Supreme Court Hears Argument in Tyson Foods’ FLSA Collective Action

The New York Times: Supreme Court Hears Case for Tyson Foods Class-Action Lawsuit

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The EEOC and Sara Lee: A Landmark Discrimination Case in Texas appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, oil and gas giant BP agreed to a $18.7 billion settlement with the U.S. government for damages to the Gulf Coast caused by its 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Since 2010, BP has made concerted efforts to repair the damage caused by the disaster. This agreement, if accepted by a federal judge, will settle the remaining state and federal claims against the company. This settlement will help facilitate the continued Gulf recovery efforts and sends a strong messages to other oil companies: if you cause damage, you will pay to fix it. But while $18.7 billion does seem like a large amount–it’s the largest settlement ever reached for environmental damage–the question remains: is it enough?

In April 2010, BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and sank, causing a sea-floor oil leak that took 87 days to control. During that period, an estimated 200 million gallons of crude oil leaked into the Gulf of Mexico, damaging approximately 68,000 square miles of water and almost 500 miles of U.S. coastline. To put these numbers in context, the Deepwater Horizon spill leaked 19 times more oil than the Exxon Valdez incident in 1989. Some of the environmental impacts may not be fully understood for decades, and while the Gulf economy has experienced a revival, there are still lingering effects from the disaster.

Within weeks of the disaster, BP announced that it pledged billions of dollars to aid the cleanup and recovery effort. While these efforts marked a show of good faith, it is also important to note that the company faced intense public outrage, not to mention potential backlash from the Justice Department to penalize BP. This move ensured that investors did not flee the company and helped keep the Justice Department at bay. In 2012, BP agreed to a class action settlement with attorneys representing thousands of individuals and organizations affected by the spill. In the wake of this agreement, many Gulf Coast residents came forward to claim damages, including some whose claims were dubious at best. This was controversial–a deal once celebrated by BP became an agreement which from the company’s perspective took advantage of its good intentions. In November 2012, BP pleaded guilty to 12 felonies, settling another component of its liability, and paid the government $4.5 billion in fines.

It would appear that BP is being heavily penalized for the 2010 spill–spending $25 billion directly afterwards, $4.5 billion in government penalties, and agreeing to this $18.7 billion settlement–but these repercussions are not as severe as they seem. While BP made considerable efforts to clean up the Gulf and pay for damages, the company has also kept its own interests in mind. BP spent $500 million on a campaign to rebrand its image after the spill, and in 2013 it launched a PR push to complain about fraudulent damage claims. Although the company protested fraudulent claims, the federal government also cracked down harshly on those who made false claims, making these concerns largely invalid.

The incident hasn’t really damaged BP’s financial situation. The company reported profits of $5.3 billion just a year after the Gulf spill, and until the recent decline in oil prices, continued to thrive. Instead of the $54 billion that BP will likely end up spending overall, Louisiana’s top aide for coastal affairs, Garret Graves, argues that its true liability should be much larger. Graves extrapolated from settlements of other large oil spills to estimate what the company’s true liability is. According to his calculations it ought to exceed $125 billion.

While some celebrate this settlement, BP likely received a less severe penalty than it deserved. Since this settlement will resolve all of the government’s remaining claims, it is unlikely that BP will be held legally responsible for any long term damage that may be discovered in the future. Despite its issues with the claims process, BP agreed to the terms and must accept the consequences. Any extra payouts that BP claims are almost certainly outweighed by the potential negative effects if BP were to put up a stronger fight. Public outrage would have remained fierce and this would likely have led to a federal campaign to give BP a harsher punishment.

Interestingly, BP’s stock rose sharply after the settlement was announced, likely due to investor confidence that this will end the company’s issues. All that is left now is for the courts to approve of the deal and it will officially become the largest settlement with a single entity in American history. Despite this, BP should thank its lucky stars that it managed to avoid more severe consequences for this spill.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was the BP Settlement Enough? appeared first on Law Street.

Last June comedian and actor Tracy Morgan’s limo bus was involved in a crash with a Walmart tractor trailer truck. The crash killed Morgan’s friend and mentor, comedian James McNair, who was also riding in the vehicle. The accident also left Morgan seriously injured, and two of the other passengers, Ardley Fuqua and Jeffrey Millea, critically hurt as well. Given the nature of the crash, Morgan, Fuqua, and Millea filed a lawsuit against Walmart, and it was just recently announced that that suit has been settled with the three plaintiffs.

Morgan, a former “Saturday Night Live” and “30 Rock” star, and his friends had left a stand-up show at the Dover Downs Hotel and Casino in Delaware where Morgan had performed, and were traveling along the New Jersey Turnpike when the accident occurred. The driver of the Walmart truck, Kevin Roper, of Georgia, didn’t see the slow-moving traffic, which included the limo bus, until it was too late. Although Roper attempted to swerve, he wasn’t able to, and slammed into the limo bus. The truck hit Morgan’s vehicle directly, but that collision set off a chain reaction crash that involved another truck and other cars.

Although Roper is filing criminal charges and has pleaded not guilty, the civil suit from the victims was filed against Walmart. The driver hadn’t slept for more than 24 hours before the crash occurred. Although exactly why Roper was awake for so long is unclear, there are federal regulations that state that drivers can only work for 11 hours in a 14-hour workday.

The accident happened nealry a year ago, but Morgan is still struggling from the ordeal. He broke his leg, nose, and multiple ribs in the crash, as well as endured severe head trauma and is still recovering. He hasn’t appeared in public since the accident, although his team has announced that he will be appearing on “The Today Show” this coming Monday. He will appear with Matt Lauer, as well as his lawyer Benedict Morelli.

The terms of the recently settled lawsuit are being kept under wraps after the settlement was filed Wednesday in Newark, New Jersey. According to Walmart President and CEO Greg Foran,

Our thoughts continue to go out to everyone that was involved in the accident. While we know there is nothing that can change what happened, Walmart has been committed to doing what’s right to help ensure the wellbeing of all of those who were impacted by the accident. We worked closely with Mr. Morelli, and we are pleased to have reached an amicable settlement that ends this litigation. We are deeply sorry that one of our trucks was involved.

Morgan and Morelli each put out statements announcing that they were pleased with the way the settlement ended. A lawsuit with McNair’s family had already been settled in January.

While the accident was certainly tragic, it’s good that the lawsuit was resolved amicably and relatively quickly. Hopefully it will provide closure for the victims as they continue to recover.

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 Tracy Morgan’s Lawsuit Against Walmart in Fatal Crash is Finally Settled appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, October 23, 2014, NBCUniversal agreed to pay $6.4 million to settle claims that it violated labor laws over its unpaid internship program.  NBCUniversal’s decision to settle is pivotal because it marks a huge step toward eliminating unpaid internship programs completely.

The lawsuit against NBCUniversal began when Monet Eliastam, the lead plaintiff of the lawsuit, interned at Saturday Night Live for 25 hours per week or more and did not receive compensation. She and other unpaid interns filed a class-action lawsuit and sued NBCUniversal. Elisastam claimed, according to the Hollywood Reporter, that NBCUniversal “misclassified its workers as unpaid interns and thus denied them benefits like a minimum wage salary, overtime pay, social security contributions, and unemployment insurance.”

The Hollywood Reporter further reports that a United States District Court will have to approve the settlement, but if it stands, $1.18 million of the total $6.4 million will go to plaintiffs’ attorneys, Elliastam will receive a $10,000 service payment, and five other plaintiffs will receive service payments of $5,000 and $2,000 rewards. The rest will go to NBCUniversal interns, and the average settlement payment to interns will be $505 for those who interned in New York since July 3, 2007, in California since February 4, 2010, and in other states since February 4, 2011.

Unpaid interns have filed cases against Fox, Sony, Warner Brothers, and Viacom, and companies like Conde Nast have also settled unpaid internship cases. Unpaid internship cases are thus becoming the norm, which it should be.

As a law student, I have had my fair share of unpaid internships. One summer, I worked 35-40 hours per week at an entertainment company and did not receive a dime. Instead, I received credit and had to take an externship class. On the surface, that may not seem terrible because I got to apply three more credits to my total needed to graduate. However, I had to pay a few thousand dollars to take the externship class because the minimum amount of credits that my loan would pay for was six, and my externship class was only three.

It doesn’t take much to realize how unfair that is. Not only did I give the company free labor, but I was out a few thousand dollars in order to get that free labor. Where is the logic in that? There is none.  The unpaid internship system is designed to take total advantage of students just so the student can put that company’s name on his or her resume. The school makes money, and the company gets free labor.

Even for students who take internships or externships during the school year and do not have the student loans issue that I did, no one wants to take a class in addition to interning.  Especially in law school, students are so busy that externship classes take a back seat to a student’s more substantive school work, internships, law journals, and/or moot court.

Moreover, the entertainment companies exist in, not surprisingly, the most expensive cities in the country. Students can’t live on unpaid internships — not when your average lunch in New York City, for example, is around $10 or more. It’s simply not feasible. Yes, you can argue that students can live on student loans, but that misses the point.  Students want to be compensated for their work and be valued as integral employees. It’s as simple as that.

Fortunately, companies are starting to pay interns because companies do not want to be victims, which has been echoed to me in several legal internship interviews.

Hopefully interns will finally begin to get paid for their work across the board, and students will not have to experience what I and millions of other students have.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries.

Featured image courtesy of [Knot via Flickr]

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NBCUniversal Settles With Unpaid Interns for $6.4 Million appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney brought us the  ‘Dark Side of Snapchat’ recently, explaining its less-than-savory methods of use by the consumers. Now it looks like all of those dark sides have landed the company, for lack better words, in deep shit. Snapchat is facing scrutiny of its practices and policies.

On May 8, 2014, Snapchat was slapped with complaints by the Federal Trade Commission that the popular mobile messaging app deceived consumers about the ephemeral nature of snaps, among other things. Furthermore, the FTC alleged that the company misrepresented the platform’s privacy and security. The FTC’s complaints allege the following:

1. Snapchat misrepresented its privacy and security actions in its marketing to consumers.
2.  Snapchat misrepresented the ephemeral nature of snaps when it is known to the company that there are several ways to store the ‘disappearing messages,’ such as third party software available for download.
3. Snapchat stored video snaps unencrypted on recipients’ devices outside of its ‘sandbox’ (in layman’s terms this means that they were stored externally from the app). Furthermore, the recipient could retrieve the ‘disappearing videos’ if he or she connected the mobile device to a computer.
4. Snapchat mislead consumers regarding the notification functionality. If a recipient of a snap took a screenshot, the sender would receive a notification, but the FTC noted multiple ways in which the notification system could be avoided.
5. Snapchat misrepresented its data collection practices to Android app users because the app transmits geolocation information, which is in direct contrast to the company’s privacy policies. (Clearly, marketing privacy does not mean actual privacy.)
6. Snapchat misrepresented the security of the ‘Find Friends’ feature. Snapchat received complaints that the feature did not verify the phone numbers, therefore, consumers potentially were communicating with someone other than the designated recipient.

While Snapchat settled the FTC charges and has not incurred monetary penalties, the company was placed on probation and will be subjected to independent privacy monitoring for the next 20 years. If the company is found misrepresenting its practices again, it could face up to $16,000 per infringement. However, this is relatively minor punishment for the company in my opinion.

Do I think that consumers truly believe that all their messages are private? No, not at all. However, if your business platform is based on some degree of privacy and security, you should really make an effort to deliver on those promises — not have one security breach after another. The company was rated with one out of six stars on the ‘Who Has Your Back’  2014 report released by Electronic Frontier Foundation last week. Snapchat is truly innovative and I hope it moves faster on the learning curve because it is a great app. But, in the words of Dottie People, “get your house in order.”

Click here to read the original post by Anneliese Mahoney: “The Dark Side of Snapchat.”

—

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Featured image courtesy of [Jose A. Perez via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dark Side of Snapchat Lands the Company in Hot Water appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, Johnson & Johnson had a $2.2 billion settlement, rendering it the third highest pharmaceutical fraud settlement made with the United States government. Will this trend continue, or will Johnson & Johnson learn from their mistakes as well as those of their predecessors?

Although consultant pharmacists purported to provide “independent recommendations based on their clinical judgment, Johnson & Johnson viewed the pharmacists as an ‘extension of [J&J’s] sales force,” the Justice Department claimed. That, more or less, is what Johnson & Johnson was sued for; drug-makers are legally only allowed to promote their product for cures in the way that the FDA has approved of them.

In a class action case, Johnson & Johnson was said to have wrongfully marketed their drugs created to treat schizophrenia, Risperdal and Invega, as dementia medication for elderly patients. Furthermore, the company allegedly lied about Risperdal’s side effects and withheld information that the medication led to diabetes. Although legally settling, the company still denied the allegations. Claiming innocence, Johnson & Johnson stated, “the settlement of the civil allegations is not an admission of any liability or wrongdoing, and the company expressly denies the government’s civil allegations.” In defending their drug, they claimed Risperdal to be “safe and effective for its approved indications”, and “an important treatment option for people with serious mental illness.”

Sure, the government has cracked down on Johnson & Johnson, and now the company is paying $2.2 billion, but does that actually mean anything? Johnson & Johnson has a net worth of $65.03 billion. In preparation for this case, the company set aside money to pay their penalties, rendering the fine insignificant for a company of great wealth and success.

So, will anything change from this settlement? Michael Ullmann, Vice President and General Counsel of Johnson & Johnson reflected, “today we reached closure on complex legal matters spanning almost a decade. This resolution [which] allows us to move forward and continue to focus on delivering innovative solutions that improve and enhance the health and well-being of patients around the world.”

I speculate that the government will tighten the reigns and harshly proctor the company, as well as extend this strict scrutiny to others drug-providers. But as a result of the simple nature of medications, being that they were released to the public shortly after their creation, and the system of pharmaceutical representatives, a heavily corrupted system, long term changes or consequential changes seem extremely unlikely to occur.

Shedding light on the impact of this case, Attorney General Eric Holder said “every time pharmaceutical companies engage in this type of conduct, they corrupt medical decisions by healthcare providers, jeopardize the public health, and take money out of taxpayers’ pockets.” Pharmaceutical representation is a capitalist system that encourages sales people to push drugs onto doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes which economically resonates, and yet morally conflicts with our way of conducting business. People become less important than businesses, as finances dictate our capitalist ways. C’est la vie. Being third in the country sounds significant, but the ranking, like China’s GDP, its just an arbitrary number in this case, meaningless.

[NPR] [NYTimes] [CNN] [J&J]

—

Featured image courtesy of [DraconianRain via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post Our Everyday Drug Dealer appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, October 29, the horrifying case that has consumed Penn State University came closer to completion. In recent years it has come out that Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach for the Penn State Nittany Lions, had waged years of systematic sexual abuse against young boys left in his care. To date, 32 young men have come forward with evidence of abuse: 6 have been dismissed and 26 have been deemed conclusive. While more are likely to come out, it was announced on Monday that these 26 men have concluded settlements with Penn State University.

The settlement dictates that approximately $60 million will be split among the 26 victims. That works out to about $2.3 million each, although some of that will obviously go to legal fees for each victim. As of Monday afternoon, 23 of the victims had signed their settlements and the others are still working on documentation but are expected to sign soon. A stipulation of these settlements is that the victims will not be able to sue anyone else, including Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile, through which he became familiar with a large number of his victims.

Jerry Sandusky’s criminal case had concluded well before these settlements. On October 9, 2012, he was sentenced to 30-60 years in prison. At 69, he is almost guaranteed to spend the rest of his life incarcerated, and rightly so.

After the settlement was announced, the University President Rodney Erickson released a statement, saying “We hope this is another step forward in the healing process for those hurt by Mr. Sandusky, and another step forward for Penn State. We cannot undo what has been done, but we can and must do everything possible to learn from this and ensure it never happens again at Penn State.”

The finances that will pay for these settlements will not come from the University itself, but rather from various insurance policies that Penn State has in case there is ever a suit pursued against the University.

While this is another huge step forward in providing closure for the young men abused at Penn State University, the case as a whole is by no means over. Earlier this summer, a judge ruled to try former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz, former Penn State President Graham Spanier, and former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley. These three men will be charged with various crimes related to the cover-up of Jerry Sandusky’s actions. These trials are still forthcoming.

These young men who were abused by a man whom they trusted had their lives irreversibly and horribly altered as children. In reality, there is probably no amount of money that can make up for what happened to them. Technically speaking, they may have been able to get more money in court. The idea of a settlement is essentially a type of game theory—both sides settle on a compromise that is low-risk, and low-reward as opposed to pursing a high-risk, high-reward strategy.

As The Atlantic pointed out after news of this settlement broke, it makes sense that this case was settled out of court, as many sex-abuse cases are. If this case were in court, the victims would have to testify to a room of people about their abuse, reliving the most traumatizing experiences of their lives.

But worse, they would also be subject to cross-examination, one of the tenants of our justice system. They would be subject to questions on their bias and opposing attorneys would probe them with the aim of poking holes in their stories. Essentially, they would be questioned thoroughly about what happened to them for the purpose of disproving the abuse they suffered. That is one of the main reasons why this case settled quickly, out of court, and for fairly cheaply. The goal was to put at least this part of this abhorrent incident to rest for those involved. As impossible as it seems, hopefully some closure will develop from the conclusion of these settlements.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [drocpsu via Flickr]

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 Penn State Settles With Some of Jerry Sandusky’s Victims appeared first on Law Street.