According to the complaint, The University's Board of Regents has been unable to set admission policies that include ethnicity and race, as well as gender as factors. The complaint states that this positions parents and students at a disadvantage.

President of the school, Mark Yudof has criticized the law in the past and the university’s legal team is looking into the lawsuit, but would not provide a comment about it.

The lawsuit states that Latino, Native Americans and blacks comprise about 25 percent of the freshmen that are enrolled in UC’s nine undergraduate campuses this year. This number is higher than in 1996. However, these minorities comprise a much larger percentage of the public high school graduates from 1996, from 39 percent in 1996 to 48 percent this year. This shows that the minority students are still sharply underrepresented in the school.

In 1997, a three-judge panel upheld the measure. The measure was originally passed by 56 percent of California voters. California is not the only state with these laws, though. Washington, Michigan and Nebraska currently have similar laws. In the state of Texas and in Florida, the legislatures have since banned similar laws that banned the use of race in school admissions within those states.

The lawsuit states that employees from Yelp contact the businesses that are listed on the website and request or demand that the company makes monthly payments to Yelp in order to have the negative reviews removed or modified. Yelp allows users to post favorable or negative customer reviews on the website about local businesses.

The law firms filing suit state that many of the businesses that have reviews from customers and are contacted by Yelp are small companies. The companies feel they have no choice to pay in order to protect further harm on their businesses.

However, the question that the lawsuit needs to answer is whether or not Yelp is offering to run a positive advertisement for the company above the negative reviews or if the company is offering to remove those reviews for a payment. If it is the second, this could be considered extortion since the payoffs to Yelp prevent the website from doing harm to the business.

The lawsuit is based on the California Unfair Competition Law, which dates to 1933 and is a broad law covering a large number of unfair business practices including any type of untrue or misleading advertising.

Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital is the plaintiff in the case. The veterinary hospital asked Yelp to remove false and defamatory review from the listings at the website. The website reviewed to remove the review, but the company’s sale representative called the veterinary hospital numerous times demanding that the hospital pay a hefty $300 payment in order to have the negative reviews hidden or removed from the website.

According to the lawsuit filed, a sales person contacted the hospital and stated that if a one year advertising subscription was purchased that the website would “Hide negative reviews on the Cats and Dogs Yelp.com listing page, or place them lower on the listing page.”

Further, it promised the animal hospital that if it purchased this type of subscription, no negative ads would appear in Google or other search engines. The hospital would also be able to choose a tagline and choose the order in which customer reviews appeared on Yelp.com.

Although the hospital is named the plaintiff in the case, the law firm handling the lawsuit has heard from numerous other small business owners who claim to have experienced the same type of extortion.

Vince Sollitto, vice president of Yelp states that the allegations are false and that many businesses advertise on Yelp when they have negative and positive reviews on the site.
Yelp is one of the largest customer review websites in the world. Each month more than 26 million people read and use the user generated content. The website contains more than eight million reviews.

On a related note, a recent article on TechCrunch.com states that Yelp owners walked away from a Google buyout offer worth over half a Billion dollars in December 2009.

Should the allegations be proven, the charges could amount to illegal electronic wiretapping, said Witold J. Walzak, who works for American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, though the union is not involved in the lawsuit. According to Walzak, who is legal director, the school is unable to enter a home electronically, just as police are not able to do so. The lawsuit seeks class action status.

The school spokesman, Doug Young states that the school is committed to the student’s privacy and could not state if the school had the ability to activate the webcams remotely. The school provided each of its 2300 students with the laptops. The city is affluent and prides itself with the technology initiatives it has taken in recent years.

The Robbins family learned of the activation of the webcams after the assistant principal at Harriton High School told the son that school officials believed he engaged in inappropriate behavior at home, though the lawsuit did not specifically state what that behavior was. There is evidence in the school’s use as a photograph taken from the webcam was made available to the student as evidence of his behavior at home. The assistant principal, Lindy Matsko confirmed to the father that the school did have the ability to activate the cameras remotely, alleges the lawsuit.

District officials confirmed that they remotely activated webcams to locate more than 40 missing laptops without notifying students or parents. Lawyers have repeatedly requested all the photographs and screenshots the district obtained.

There is precedence in similar cases, though nothing exactly the same. In 2001, the United States Supreme Court ruled that police could not permeate a home with infrared lights to determine if there were heat lamps in place to grow marijuana. Technology is unable to cross the line of a person’s home, as it violates the individual’s privacy.

"Evans' speech falls under the wide umbrella of protected speech," Garber wrote. "It was an opinion of a student about a teacher, that was published off-campus, did not cause any disruption on-campus, and was not lewd, vulgar, threatening, or advocating illegal or dangerous behavior."

The student, Katherine Evans, has filed a lawsuit against the principal of the school who suspended her. However, most important in the case is that the ruling by the judge sets new precedent in such cases in which the Internet and freedom of speech have yet to be defined. Around the country, courts are still trying to work out how social networking websites such as Facebook and free speech limitations interact with each other.

The Florida ACLU filed the lawsuit on the behalf of Evans. The ACLU states that it hoped that this case would do just what it has; set precedent in free speech laws for the Internet and other forms of communication.

Evans posted a message on the Facebook page staying that the teacher was “the worst teacher I’ve ever met.” However, when other students saw the message, they did not react favorably. Rather, other teachers and students defended the teacher. Evans later removed the message from the page. The principal learned of the message, then suspended Evans from the student’s Advanced Placement classes, and instead placed the student in less prestigious classes. Principal Peter Bayer also suspended the student for three days.

In 2008, Evans filed a lawsuit against the principal in the case in the hopes of having the suspension ruled unconstitutional and to have it removed from her record. As an honor student, she did not want her record tarnished. However, the principal tried to get the case dismissed and asked for immunity in the case.

The ruling by Magistrate Judge Barry Garber declined the motion to toss out the case and said that the principal may be forced to pay damages and attorney's fees if found guilty of violating the student’s rights.

Of particular concern was the fact that it was two months after Evans removed the Facebook message about the teacher that the principal decided to punish the student. The lawsuit is not yet settled and will head back to court.

In a related note, The US Supreme Court previously ruled to uphold a California Law which gives students even more Freedom of Expression rights. You may read our blog post about that case by clicking HERE.

Also named in the lawsuit is the principal of the school, Gina Linder, whom the parents believe did not do enough to protect Tyler Long, who died after what his parents call a "particularly painful week of bullying at the high school." Long had Asperger's syndrome, which is a type of social anxiety disorder within the area of autism. The parents believe that the school's inability to protect the child was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Vocational Rehabilitation Act.

According to Stan Hawkins, who represents the school district, the case has no merit. In a statement, he states that the school system is not responsible for the child taking his life. Hawkins is one of several attorneys working on behalf of the school system.

A statement released from the parent's law firm, W. Winston Briggs Law Firm states, in part that the school's administrators and employees "exhibited deliberate indifference" towards protecting the child. The statement says that the school and principal knew of the child's disability and did not do anything to protect the child from the bullying. The law firm also states that the principal knew of the bullying. The parents filed the suit in an effort to hold someone accountable for their child's death and to ensure it does not happen to someone else.

Although the case has been filed in federal court, there is likely to be a significant discovery period prior to the case going to trial. The school system has 20 days to respond to the allegations. The lawsuit is seeking punitive damages, including payment for court costs and attorney fees.

The Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District met to discuss possible options. Staff presented a number of options including those that would use academic performances and the student's home location to determine where the student went to school. Board recommendations are still being submitted and a final vote is scheduled for March 3 on all the options available.

Options include:

Parent Selection
One of the options presented is to allow parents to select the school that the child attends, up until the school is full. At that time, all names of remaining students would be placed in a lottery system to determine which school the child will attend. However, the difference here is that the lottery would also take into consideration academic performance of the student to get an aggregate of low to high performing students in each school. In addition, such a lottery system would also factor in the location of the student's home.

Closest to Home
Another option is to simply send the children to the school that is closest to their home. Parents could still make a choice in which school to send their child, but they would be allowed to choose other schools outside of their closest school only if there was availability at that school. This makes the school assignment far more predictable.

Racial Diversity
The goal of the school board, however, is to create more racial diversity within their schools. Neither of the thus far proposed options offers any type of benefit to racial diversity. The school officials are hoping to find another solution that will give them more ability to reduce the number of racially isolated schools in the community.

Complexity
The Parent Advisory Council and Parents for Public Schools both came together to talk about the school assignment system. These groups will not support any system that takes the parent’s right to choose a school. The group believes that if the school district ensured that all schools offered the same benefits that people would not care as much about their child's assignments.

A history of the San Francisco Unified School District's school assignment system may be found by clicking on the following link:

The basis for joining the lawsuit, the government says, is Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case is being heard in US District Court in the Northern District of New York. The teen's attorney states that the case is a fight for basic human rights afforded under the US Constitution. It commends the Justice Department for its involvement in the case.

The lawsuit seeks undisclosed monetary damages. With the joining of the Justice Department, this helps provide district wide relief for all district students in the future. The assistant attorney general in Washington authorized the involvement of the Justice Department by stating that it was a matter of general public importance.

The student is no longer in the Mohawk district but attends school in a neighboring district. The school district claims it is close to a settlement with the student, but further comments were not available. The Justice Department has interviewed numerous Mohawk school officials including Superintendent Joyce Caputo.

The ruling from the appellate court states that the pay or play clause in his contract allowed the network to take the actions they did. Further, the ruling stated that Rather failed to show support for his claims that CBS has hurt his future earning potential in the case.

Rather was with the company for 44 years. This motion was the final move the newsman could make in the case, which proved to be an expensive and ugly battle. Rather sued CBS first in 2007, when he stated that his treatment from the company in the aftermath of a controversial report issued about George W Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard was released.

The lawsuit stems from a 60 Minutes II piece in which Rather reported that Bush received preferential treatment during his Vietnam era service in the National Guard. Rather states that there were documents obtained by CBS written by Bush's commanding officer at the time. However, the validity of the documents came under scrutiny and the network conceded that the documents could not be authenticated.

After he filed suit, some of his colleagues publically denounced him saying that he trying to deflect some of the blame for allowing the story, which had not been properly vetted, onto the news program. However, the lawsuit, claims Rather, is meant to take on political interests and business interests that he believes are affecting the news organizations.

Rather was quoted as saying the following in regards to the lawsuit and his claims, "I believed then and I believe now that its' important the public understand how much influence in collusion big government and big business can have in affecting how the news is handled." The remarks were made on Tuesday after his motion was declined.

CBS declined to comment on the ruling, stating that they will let Rather have the final word.
After the airing of the controversial piece, Rather says that he was pushed out of the anchor chair and then placed in the news division until he was prematurely released. He believes that the actions of the network damaged his reputation and made it difficult for the anchor to find work after that point.

A further hearing has been set to determine the extent of the penalty held against Flanagan, but reports indicate that the company is seeking monetary damages which may include Flanagan's retirement benefits. Flanagan has not made a statement regarding the case. He has said that some of his investments were allowed by the SEC, such as those in which he did not have specific interactions with client's or those clients that were not from the Chicago office where he was employed.

Flanagan, a senior partner and Vice Chairman for the company embarrassed the company and left the company vulnerable to a variety of liability exposures from clients. In addition, the company is now shaken because of the additional regulatory scrutiny about the independence of the auditor. Within the accounting industry, there are strict rules about trading simply because employees have so much access to the private information of their clients that they could affect the pricing of the client's securities. Numerous times during the trial, Flanagan invoked his Fifth Amendment rights.

Many of the company's clients have had to do their own investigation to determine the involvement of Flanagan with their individual accounts. Walgreens, USG Corp and Allstate have conducted investigation that have found that Flanagan did not have involvement with their specific audits.

The company, Deloitte, says that Flanagan made investments into the company's audit clients and others more than 300 times between the period of 2001 to 2008. In some of those transactions, evidence showed that Deloitte was trading on non public information which is illegal. As of yet, the US Securities and Exchange Commission has not brought charges in the case.

Flanagan's involvement in such transactions was detailed numerous times in the case. One instance poses Flanagan attending a meeting of Allstate's audit committee in which a draft of the company's second quarter earnings statement was circulated. The company planned to announce significant increases in full year earnings at that time. This occurred on July 17, 2006. The following day, Flanagan purchased call options in Allstate stock. He later sold them on July 20th, the day after Allstate's earnings went public and the price of the stock purchased rose considerably. The stock saw an 85 percent gain in those days.

Flanagan is also charged with concealing his holdings from the company. The company requires individuals to report investments they or their immediate families own. In numerous instances, Flanagan would record unauthorized holdings into the company's computer tracking but would go back later the same day to correct such entries indicating that he had disposed of holdings when in fact he had not.

According to reports, Deloitte did not know of Flanagan’s wrongdoing until August of 2008. At that time, the SEC contacted Deloitte in regards to an audit for Walgreens in 2007. Flanagan purchased stock in Option Care Inc a week before Walgreens announced that it would buy the company in July of 2007. Flanagan did serve as an advisory partner on that audit. Flanagan resigned from his position with Deloitte as soon as the company contacted him regarding the SEC inquiry.

The American Freedom Alliance says it has no position on intelligent design but does say that the filing of the lawsuit against the science center is necessary since the center is stifling debate on the topic by canceling it. The organization brought the lawsuit against the California Science Center in October, in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The science center was set to show the program in October of 2009. However, it pulls it after being pressured to do so by the Smithsonian and other scientific academies.

This is not the first time that this topic has come up in a court of law. In 2005, for example, the case of Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District resulted in a federal judge issuing a ruling that public school classes cannot present intelligent design as an argument for the creation of humans because it is a form of Creationism. It also occurred in 2005, when The Smithsonian approved auditorium space in its National Museum of Natural History to screen another intelligent design type of documentary. The scientific community opposed this, but The Smithsonian was unable to back out of the previously signed contract. It did refund the rental fee for the space and publically stated it was not endorsing the screening of the documentary.

The pretrial hearing in this case is scheduled for January 26th, 2010. The American Freedom Alliance claims that the cancelation of the screening was done under a false pretext and therefore that the science center committed contract fraud. It is seeking punitive damages.

Here is the press release:

For Immediate Release: January 6, 2010

GIBBONS EDUCATION REFORM PROPOSAL

Governor Gibbons is firmly committed to improving K-12 education in Nevada. Improvement will require new ideas and fresh resolve to replace blind allegiance to ineffectual and wasteful notions that have demonstrated no substantive gains in academic performance for the last 20 years.

Class size reduction was added to the Nevada Revised Statutes in 1989. According to the Nevada Department of Education, 613 schools served K-12 students during Fiscal Year 2009. Despite 20 years funding class size reduction, the Department recently announced 142 public schools in Nevada qualify as low-performing for the purposes of receiving federal grants for the “worst” schools in the nation. That means 23 percent of our public schools are not adequately addressing the educational needs of their students.

It’s time to stop whining that education in Nevada doesn’t work because of lack of funding. We need to quit throwing money at programs which have not accomplished their stated purposes despite two decades of funding. There are many studies which debate the issue of class size in primary grades, as many pro as con. Utah has one of the lowest per student expenditures in the nation and the highest student per teacher ratio. Utah students consistently achieve above average levels. Washington, D.C. has the lowest student per teacher ratio and the highest per student expenditures, and yet they consistently rank in the bottom for student achievement. If class size reduction is the answer for improving K-12 in Nevada, why haven’t student test scores improved dramatically in the last 20 years?

In order to improve Nevada schools for our students, we need to implement true change - real change. We need to get parents and communities involved in their local schools, and in charge of their children’s education. We need to empower local school boards to make decisions which are right for the children in their community. Local school boards are ultimately responsible to parents and voters in their community. Parents have the most vested interest in the outcome of their children’s education.

The cookie cutter approach has not worked in K-12 education. Not all schools need class size reduction programs. Not all schools need full-day kindergarten. School districts must be empowered to choose the right programs for the students in each of their local schools. Parents must be afforded the ability to choose and guide the education which works for their children.

The current fiscal crisis facing Nevada mandates that Governor Gibbons buck the status quo. If 23 percent of Nevada schools are categorized as underachieving, we need to rethink how we deliver public education in Nevada. We need to make better use of existing resources, and give local school districts the flexibility to use funding to deliver the right programs to the right kids to achieve the best results.

Governor Gibbons will call a special session of the Nevada Legislature to address the fiscal crisis facing the state of Nevada. In this session, Governor Gibbons will introduce a K-12 education reform package which will not only save Nevada taxpayer dollars, but will better utilize existing taxpayer support for schools by empowering local school districts to govern and direct how education is delivered.

Governor Gibbons’ education reform package includes:

According to teachers, the California Education Code requires the approval of a majority of permanent teachers before schools can be turned into charter schools. In a news conference held at Garfield High School, the teachers claimed that schools like Garfield and Esteban Torres High School fall into this category.

The lawsuit specifically wants the LAUSD to comply with the Education Code, and hopes a court order will force this to happen.

The plaintiffs in the case are UTLA, and LAUSD teachers from Garfield High School, 28th Street Elementary School, Foshay Learning Center and Pio Pico Span School.

While Esteban Torres High School (charter) should relieve some of the overcrowding from the nearby (non charter) Garfield High School, LAUSD’s position is that a vote of the teachers was not required since Esteban Torres High School is a brand new school, and not a conversion of an existing school.

The two high schools, Garfield and Torres are part of the 36 new and existing schools in the Public School Choice Resolution passed by the Board of Education for the 2010 and 2011 school year. This plan allows for operations of the school to be put out to bid by third parties. The goal of the program is to help provide options for the operation of schools considered low performing campuses. Monica Garcia, who is the president of the LAUSD Board of Education, says that no schools will automatically be converted to charters as a result of the program.

This lawsuit is expected to be just the first in a series that will be filed by the UTLA in opposition to the LAUSD's plans to reform. It is also important to note that charter schools are not required to hire union teachers.

When she entered law school, the Law School Admissions Test was required. UCLA, the school she was testing into, hired a human reader to read the test questions for her. The problems happened on test day. She says that the man hired was so sick that he continued to leave to get tea and blew his nose. She had a hard time understanding him through his nasally congestion, too. However, she passed the test and entered law school. She believes her score suffered because she was denied the use of a computer software program that would magnify the text of the test and convert it to speech heard through an ear bud.

The National Conference of Bar Examiners has denied her request to use a computer program to take a portion of the California bar exam that it controls. Rather, it says she must use a human reader instead.

Due to this, she has sued the national conference. She claims that the conference violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act that prohibit discrimination.

Enyart says, as reported by the LA Times, "To use a human reader or the visual accommodations they have offered just simply doesn't meet my disability needs. It would be like trying to run a race in someone else's shoes."

Mr. Enyart is not the only person who wants the national conference to catch up. A man named Michael Witwer, who will graduate from Catholic University of American's law school this year took another required test, the Multistate Professionals Responsibility Exam recently and passed though with a score he believes was reduced because he was unable to use computer programs during the test. Rather, a human reader was imposed by the administrator of the test.

He says that the reader commented on big words in the questions and struggled with pronunciation including struggling with the word constitutional.

However, there is some improvement seen within the industry. The National Conference of Bar Examiners has allowed three blind test takers to take the test in July using a pilot program that allows software to read the text aloud to the user. This was reported through Larry Paradis, an attorney who is part of the firm representing Enyart in her lawsuit. The pilot's internal report says that the pilot program has been successful. However, the program is unable to be used at this point, and will not be available in February when Enyart will take her test.

There are about 500 blind or vision impaired lawyers in practice in the United States. Most use equipment similar to what Enyart wants to use within their day-to-day practices.

Christian Legal Society filed a lawsuit against the school in October of 2004. This group limits those who may join the society based on one clear statement. The student is unable to join if he or she "advocates or unrepentantly engages in sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman." The group's members must sign documentation stating they are committed evangelical Protestant or Catholics.

The school enforced its policy on barring discrimination based on race, national origin, sexual orientation or religion and refused the society. The group then took the matter to federal courts. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White then ruled that the school was justified in its refusal and said the school could require that organizations "accept all comers as members." This was later upheld in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

However, the group appealed to the Supreme Court. Their opinion is that the school is forcing the society to abandon their identity or shut down the society altogether.

The answers to these concerns will not come soon. The case is likely to be heard in March of 2010 and a ruling may come down by June.

The argument that the society is making is that if all members had to be accepted, this would restrict the progress of the group since valuable time would be repeatedly spent discussing the fundamentals of members’ various religious beliefs. The school, however, believes the issue is whether or not universities and other public schools should subsidize discriminatory groups.

Other cases like this have been heard. In 2007, a lawsuit by Christian Legal Society against Southern Illinois University was settled in which the school said it would recognize the group. More so, the Boy Scouts of American was upheld in its decision to exclude gays and atheists from its membership roles, as a private organization's right to free association. However, the California Supreme Court upheld another incident with the Boy Scouts in 2006 in which Berkeley denied a rent subsidy to the Sea Scouts, a Boy Scout Subsidiary.

Sanders commented that he was simply another high profile person to be sued by Deters, a reference to the Deters suits against the New England Patriots and Chad Ochocinco. In addition, he commented on Deters radio career saying Deters was "a publicity seeking radio personality with a law license."

Under law, a prosecutor cannot be sued as they have immunity. However, Deters claims that the actions prior to the charges being filed are not included in that immunity. Although Sanders says that a judge determined there was probable cause to arrest Howell, Deters argues that "when a prosecutor violated the public trust, those destroyed in the wake of the abuse of power deserve their remedy."

In the state of Kentucky, only a judge can issue an arrest warrant. Kenton Circuit Judge Gregory Bartlett determined there was probable cause and sent the case on to the grand jury, where 12 members found that there was sufficient evidence to send the case on further, to the jury.

It took juries only 70 minutes to find Howell not guilty of first degree sexual abuse. Howell says she is suing the attorney because she doesn't want someone else to face the same level of wrongful prosecution. She claims her reputation and her teaching career are over due to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that Howell's previous attorney, Patrick Moeves, was told by Sanders that he did not care about the privately administered polygraph test that Howell passed. He wanted her arrested. Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Stephanie Kastner made statements to Moeves that she did not want any part of the case, however had to act as Sanders requested. Moreover, it claims that Sanders knew numerous facts that would dispute the minor’s claims. These facts include the polygraph test passage, the minor being unable to identify a tattoo on Howell's back, rumors about the incident at school, and that the minor denied the rumors first before going forward.

Sanders, however, says that the minor did describe the layout of Howells apartment and could describe details of that apartment.

Interestingly, Howell's case was the first prosecuted under a more-stringent state law that makes it a felony for a person in authority to have even consensual sexual relations with someone under 18. In all other instances in Kentucky, the age of consent is considered to be 16.