Latest news with #plaintiff
Yahoo
08-08-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
This week in 5 numbers: The price tag of employee referral programs
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. One plaintiff is seeking millions after he allegedly was retaliated against and wrongfully terminated for trying to investigate potentially unlawful conduct at a baby product manufacturer, and another claimed her employer used a 'blatantly wrong' interpretation of China's mandatory retirement law to fire her for turning 55. Here's a closer look at those numbers and some of the others making headlines in the HR world. By the numbers 35% The share of women who rate their mental health as 'very good' or 'excellent,' according to a survey by Guardian. 55 The age at which Honeywell International, Inc., allegedly illegally fired a U.S. citizen working in Shanghai because she reached China's mandatory retirement age, according to a lawsuit filed against the company. 90% The percentage of surveyed workers over the age of 50 who said they have experienced ageism in the workplace, a Resume Now survey found. More than $1,000 The amount companies with employee referral programs pay workers on average for successful referrals, per a HireClix report. $10 million The amount of compensatory damages the former general counsel of baby products manufacturer Munchkin, Inc., seeks in a lawsuit against the company alleging a toxic work culture, discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination. Recommended Reading DHL will pay $8.7M to settle allegations it gave Black workers more dangerous assignments Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
17-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Performance reviews undermine woman's bias claim against Exxon Mobil, 7th Circuit says
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: A former laboratory technician for Exxon Mobil failed to show that the employer fired her on the basis of her sex in part because she lacked evidence to counter the company's claim that its decision hinged upon her poor performance, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in a Monday decision. The plaintiff's first and only performance review placed her in the lowest-ranked performance category. Exxon gave her the option of either taking a separation agreement or resigning immediately. She chose the latter, per court documents, and sued the company for discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, alleging Exxon erred in its evaluation process and treated her less favorably than two male co-workers who held the same title, work location and managers. A district court ruled in favor of Exxon and the 7th Circuit affirmed, finding that the two male employees were not proper comparators and that the plaintiff had not shown that Exxon's decision was pretextual. Dive Insight: In its decision, the 7th Circuit repeatedly referenced Exxon's performance documentation of the plaintiff, at one point noting that she 'did not fare well in comparison' to other employees in her cohort of 'Management Assigned Category' workers, a category that included new hires with three or more years of relevant experience before joining Exxon. The company's policy dictated that MAC employees who received the lowest performance category rating be given the separation-agreement-or-resignation offer. The court noted that the plaintiff did not cite any evidence to show that her performance was comparable to other such employees. Instead, the plaintiff 'was ranked last in that unchallenged process,' it said. 'Other than the fact that [the plaintiff] is a member of a protected class, there is no evidence in the record from which a reasonable juror could infer that she was terminated because of her sex,' the 7th Circuit wrote. Employers have successfully used documentation as a defense against discrimination claims in the past. In 2019, for example, the 11th Circuit held that Lowe's did not discriminate against a worker on the basis of his age or disability when it fired him following a series of investigations in response to complaints about the plaintiff from other employees. Management-side attorneys have repeatedly stressed the importance of thorough documentation, including of performance issues, in defending against lawsuits. A speaker at SHRM's 2024 annual conference told attendees that effective documentation covers a number of bases, including clear expectations of the employee, descriptions of needed adjustments, and detailed plans or action items, among other elements. Recommended Reading Scientist couldn't show NASA failed to hire him due to race, court says
Forbes
15-07-2025
- Automotive
- Forbes
Cell Phone Forensics: Why Trucking Defense Attorneys Fail At Plaintiff Phone Discovery—And How To Succeed
When an eighty-thousand-pound commercial vehicle collides with a passenger car, the resulting litigation can reach eight figures. Yet despite billions in annual settlements, a critical evidence source in trucking accident cases remains inconsistently accessed by defense teams: the plaintiff's smartphone. While many trucking companies routinely preserve their driver's phone for forensic examination, defense attorneys face significant challenges obtaining the same evidence from plaintiffs. This creates a fundamental asymmetry in trucking accident litigation. Today, commercial carriers are expected to rapidly preserve their driver's cell phone for forensic examination, understanding that courts generally expect cooperation and transparency from businesses involved in accidents. However, obtaining comparable access to plaintiff phones requires different strategies, targeted negotiations, and sometimes extended legal proceedings. The challenge lies in the complexity of digital evidence and the legitimate privacy concerns that fuel resistance. As a digital forensics expert, I spend much of my time educating attorneys about cell phone forensics. I know firsthand the technical requirements and strategic approaches that have proven successful in gaining access to plaintiff cell phones. Cell Phone Forensics Is Best Evidence The evidence contained in smartphones can be decisive. Cell phone forensics provides precise timestamps, location coordinates, and device interaction data that can definitively prove what someone was doing in the moments before an accident. Unlike phone bills and call detail records, forensic analysis of the physical cell phone can prove whether fingers were actually touching the screen, which applications were active, and whether notifications were seen or ignored. Most defense attorneys struggle to obtain this evidence because they approach plaintiff phone discovery the same way they would request any other document. This traditional approach consistently fails because it ignores both the technical realities of cell phone forensics and the strategic considerations that make cooperation more likely. The typical discovery cycle follows a predictable pattern: This pattern repeats frequently because the approach triggers predictable objections that courts often find persuasive when weighing individual privacy rights against discovery needs. Smartphones contain vast amounts of deeply personal information: intimate communications, financial data, medical information, photos and digital records that create a comprehensive picture of someone's private life. While plaintiff opposition reflects legitimate concerns, these can be addressed with thoughtful defense strategies. Why "Just Get the Text Messages" Won't Work In Trucking Accident Cases Many attorneys assume they can simply request "text messages and calls from the time of the accident" and sidestep privacy concerns. This approach fundamentally misunderstands how cell phone forensics works and will leave you missing the most critical evidence in trucking cases. The evidence that actually determines liability in trucking accidents requires a cell phone forensic data extraction from the physical smartphone—but not just any type of extraction. In trucking accident cases, a full file system data extraction is the gold standard. This extraction recovers forensic artifacts showing screen touches, keyboard caches revealing what was typed, application usage data, and notification interaction records. All the data must be collected upfront as a technical necessity because of how cell phone forensic tools work and to preserve the critical evidence that proves what actually happened in the moments before impact. Cell Phone Forensics: The Technical Game-Changer This technical necessity of complete data collection through full file system extraction becomes the foundation for strategic negotiations. The key insight that successful attorneys understand is that complete data collection doesn't require complete data analysis. This distinction allows for protocols that satisfy technical requirements while addressing privacy concerns through meaningful limitations on what data will actually be examined. Attempting selective data extraction during the forensic process would compromise data integrity and potentially create problems with evidence admissibility. Forensic tools cannot distinguish between "relevant" and "irrelevant" data during extraction. They must image the entire device to maintain proper evidence handling and preserve deleted information that might be crucial to understanding what happened. Moreover, attempting selective data extraction during the forensic process could compromise data integrity and potentially create problems with evidence admissibility. This technical reality provides the foundation for protocol-based negotiations that satisfy both technical requirements and privacy concerns. Getting Plaintiff Phones: The Protocol-Based Approach That Works The most successful trucking defense attorneys have moved beyond traditional discovery battles to a protocol-based approach that separates data collection from data analysis. These protocols acknowledge technical realities while providing meaningful privacy protections that make cooperation more likely. Effective protocols typically include several key elements: Clearly defined time boundaries: Shows precision and reasonableness by focusing analysis on a specific, defensible timeframe directly relevant to the accident. This addresses judicial concerns about overbreadth while ensuring you capture the critical evidence window. The narrow focus demonstrates you're conducting a targeted investigation, not a fishing expedition through the plaintiff's digital life. Professional handling requirements: Builds credibility and addresses competency concerns by specifying that only qualified digital forensics professionals will access the sensitive data. This requirement shows respect for the technical complexity of digital evidence and assures courts that the examination will follow industry standards. Comprehensive privacy protections: Directly tackles the core privacy concerns that drive plaintiff resistance by implementing specific safeguards for irrelevant personal information. These protections demonstrate genuine respect for privacy rights while preserving evidentiary value, making cooperation more likely and court approval more probable. Specific data destruction timelines: Offers concrete assurance that sensitive data won't be retained indefinitely, addressing long-term privacy exposure concerns. Written certification creates accountability and demonstrates good faith compliance with agreed-upon limitations. This approach offers a strategic advantage: it shows technical competence and genuine respect for privacy interests while keeping focus on obtaining evidence necessary to understand what happened in the critical moments before the accident. Plaintiff Phones: A Case Study In Strategic Success A recent high-stakes trucking case shows the power of the protocol approach: The Initial Challenge: The plaintiff claimed they had safely ended a phone call minutes before the accident and put their device away. Cellular carrier phone records seemed to support this claim, showing the call had ended three minutes before impact. Traditional Approach Failed: Traditional discovery requests for phone data met strong resistance. Opposing counsel argued that phone records were sufficient and that broader access violated privacy rights. The Strategic Pivot: Rather than filing a broad motion to compel, the defense team crafted a detailed protocol that: Court Success: When negotiations failed, the defense team's motion to compel included this carefully structured protocol. The court was impressed by the professional approach and meaningful limitations, finding that the protocol properly balanced the need for relevant evidence with legitimate privacy concerns. The court granted the motion, ordering the forensic examination under the proposed protocol terms. The Game-Changing Discovery: The resulting forensic examination revealed that while the phone call had indeed ended three minutes before impact, the plaintiff had immediately opened a texting application and was actively typing a message at the moment of collision. The device's interaction logs showed precise screen touches at the time of impact, and the incomplete text message was preserved in the phone's memory. Case Resolution: This evidence completely transformed the case dynamics, shifting focus from alleged truck driver negligence to documented plaintiff phone use while driving. The case ultimately settled for a fraction of the original demand. Plaintiff Phone Discovery: Critical Strategic Elements Successful phone discovery requires understanding several strategic elements that can significantly improve outcomes: The Education Component: Many resistance issues stem from genuine misunderstanding about what cell phone forensics involves. Judges and plaintiff attorneys may believe that selective data extraction is technically possible and view complete imaging requests as unnecessary overreach. Explaining technical realities builds credibility and shows that your approach stems from necessity rather than opportunism. Technical Credibility: Without proper expert support, discovery requests look like fishing expeditions rather than necessary technical requirements. Qualified digital forensics experts can explain why complete data collection is required while demonstrating how protocols protect privacy interests. Privacy Balance: Effective protocols don't dismiss privacy concerns—they address them head-on with specific, meaningful protections that demonstrate genuine respect for legitimate interests while preserving evidentiary value. Timing Considerations: Digital evidence degrades over time as devices are used, applications update, and data gets overwritten. Early action is essential to preserve potentially crucial evidence before it disappears forever. When Negotiations Fail: Court Motions Even well-crafted protocols don't guarantee cooperation. When court motions become necessary, success depends on elements that extend beyond traditional discovery arguments. Successful motions include: The most effective motions also address common objections technically and proactively. They explain why alternative methods can't provide equivalent evidentiary value and demonstrate that proposed protocols include meaningful privacy protections rather than broad, unfocused data requests. Plaintiff Cell Phone Discovery: The Path Forward The difference between success and failure often comes down to understanding subtle nuances: the specific protocol language that makes cooperation more likely, the technical explanations that build credibility with both opposing counsel and courts, and the strategic approaches that transform resistance into cooperation. In our increasingly digital reality where smartphones are central to daily life, the evidence they contain can be decisive in trucking accident litigation. For trucking defense attorneys, developing expertise in obtaining plaintiff cell phones has become essential for representing motor carriers and uncovering the full picture about what happened in the critical moments before an accident.
ArabGT
07-07-2025
- Automotive
- ArabGT
Mazda Faces Lawsuit Over Persistent Brake Noise in the 2024 CX-90
In a move that could have significant implications for automakers, the owner of a 2024 Mazda CX-90 has taken legal action against Mazda, alleging the company failed to properly address an ongoing brake noise issue. At the center of the case isn't a complex mechanical failure but a high-pitched brake squeal—loud enough, according to the complaint, to cause public embarrassment and raise serious safety concerns. The plaintiff claims the shrill sound produced when applying the brakes is sudden, jarring, and disruptive, particularly during emergency stops. He argues that it not only undermines confidence in the vehicle but also creates potentially dangerous driving conditions. Early Complaints, Limited Solutions The issue first emerged when the vehicle had covered fewer than 840 miles (1,352 km). Upon visiting the dealership, the owner discovered that the service team was already familiar with the complaint. They initially lubricated the brake pads and calipers, which reduced the noise temporarily. However, the relief didn't last. On subsequent visits, technicians tried further remedies—polishing the rotors and pads, and applying materials meant to dampen sound and vibration. Yet the squealing persisted. Despite multiple repair attempts, the noise kept returning, prompting repeated trips to the dealership. During one of these visits, a technician revealed an internal Mazda technical bulletin from 2024 that acknowledged the problem. But there was no permanent fix—nor an official recall. Legal Action on Grounds of Negligence Frustrated, the owner filed a lawsuit in California, accusing Mazda of negligence and breach of its responsibilities to customers. He contends that Mazda sold a car with a known, unresolved flaw, and that the temporary fixes offered were insufficient. According to the complaint, he spent over $1,500 (5,625 SAR) trying to resolve the issue, with no lasting success. The legal filing claims that Mazda failed to inform customers about the defect and failed to develop or communicate a definitive solution—leading to an ownership experience described as both stressful and unsafe. A Widespread Complaint? Reports from other CX-90 owners suggest this case may not be isolated. Discussions on forums and social media show several drivers have noticed similar brake noise, often likened to 'metal scraping metal.' Some owners say Mazda attributed the sound to typical brake behavior in certain environments or as part of the normal break-in process for new vehicles. Still, critics argue that such explanations fall short, especially when the noise is so loud that it disrupts concentration and contributes to a feeling of instability while driving. From a Service Issue to a Trust Crisis While Brake Noise might seem like a minor annoyance, this case illustrates how seemingly small flaws can damage a brand's credibility. For the affected owner—and many others—what began as a service request has turned into a symbol of frustration, costly repairs, and corporate silence. If Mazda fails to respond with a transparent and lasting resolution, it may face increasing legal pressure, and possibly, a broader recall. What's at stake isn't just noise—it's consumer trust.
Malay Mail
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
If Anwar's constitutional questions are preposterous, absurd and legal nonsense, let the court say it — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 6 — Cornell Law School offers an insightful read on qualified immunity. It says that qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity that protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a 'clearly established' statutory or constitutional right. A plaintiff is the party who sues in a civil suit. A defendant is the party sued. It says further that qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. (Emphasis added) When determining whether a right was 'clearly established,' courts in the US consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant's conduct violated the plaintiff's rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case. Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages , but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. (Emphasis added) Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery. Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials' actions. (Emphasis added) Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. Does qualified immunity apply to a prime minister in Malaysia? That's the constitutional question proposed to be referred by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for a ruling by the Federal Court. Some, even from the legal fraternity, have vilified Anwar and his legal team for the proposed constitutional questions which have been called preposterous, absurd and 'legal nonsense'. But if they are such, let the court having the ultimate authority say it.
