Decatur Legal

Professor’s Arrest for Jaywalking Makes National Headlines

During her walk home after teaching classes at Arizona State University, English professor Ersula Ore was stopped by police for jaywalking. Video footage from the police dash provides evidence that Ore was walking in the middle of the Tempe, Arizona street. The footage also provides a clear picture as to why such a routine incident has received national media attention.

According to this CNN article, the interaction between Ore and the police officer became volatile, ending in the arrest of Ore. After she was asked by the officer to produce her ID, Ore became defensive, Officer Ferrin in turn threatened to arrest the professor.

“If you don’t understand the law, I’m explaining the law to you. The reason I’m talking to you right now is because you are walking in the middle of the street.” Officer Ferrin explained to Ore.

The dashboard video provides that Ore explained to the officer that she was walking in the road to avoid construction. As Officer Ferrin began to cuff Professor Ore, Ore became belligerent, “Don’t touch me. Get your hands off me.” The officer then warned Ore if she did not comply, he would slam her into the car. As she resisted, Officer Ferrin forced Ore to the ground, Ore’s skirt rising up in the process, revealing her anatomy for anyone in close proximity to see.

As the officer pulled the professor from the ground, Ore kicked Ferrin in his shin. Ore is facing charges of assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, failing to provide ID and obstruction of a public thoroughfare.

In a written statement to CNN, Ore’s attorney wrote, “Professor Ore’s one crime that evening was to demand respect that she deserves as a productive, educated and tax paying member of society.” Further elaborating, “She can clearly be heard on the dash video instructing the officer not to grab toward her genital area prior to him reaching for her in an attempt to pull her skirt down.

The university stated that it did not find evidence of inappropriate actions from the officers involved.

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced a false arrest, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Pregnant Worker Sues Massage Envy for Wrongful Termination

In April, 2013, Morgan McCloskey was hired to work as a front desk attendant at a Massage Envy franchise. Before her first day of work, McCloskey took a home pregnancy test and the result was positive. As detailed in this article, a complaint filed by the EEOC alleges that on her first day of work, McCloskey told a supervisor of her possible pregnancy.

After a doctor confirmed her pregnancy a few days later, McCloskey was called into a meeting with two managers and her employment with the well known spa was terminated.

After attempts to reach a settlement with the franchise failed, the EEOC is seeking injunctive relief to bar future discrimination by the franchise. In addition, the EEOC is asking for back pay and damages.

Attorney for the EEOC, Lynette Barnes, “No working woman should have to fear losing her job simply because she decides to have a child.” Further stating, “Employers must remember that terminating an employee because she is pregnant violates federal law.”

Speaking for Massage Envy, attorney Nichole Murphey, “Massage Envy has never terminated anyone’s employment due to pregnancy. My client has routinely employed and currently continues to employ pregnant women.”

If you or someone you know thinks they have been terminated for unlawful reasons, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Historic Day in the Fight for Marriage Equality

364 days after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the U.S. Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) has upheld Utah’s ruling that the state’s ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional. The court held that, “under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex.” The 2-1 decision reads in part, “the experimental value of federalism cannot overcome plaintiffs’ rights to due process and equal protection.”

Today a U.S. District Judge ruled that Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The Honorable Richard Young’s decision in Baskin v. Bogan states in part, “The Court has never witnessed a phenomenon throughout the federal court system as is presented with this issue. In less than a year, every federal district court to consider the issue has reached the same conclusion in thoughtful and thorough opinions – laws prohibiting the celebration and recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. It is clear that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based solely on the person they choose to love. In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples such as Plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as a marriage – not a same-sex marriage. These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such.”

Soon after it was filed in March of this year, Lambda Legal filed a motion seeking immediate relief in Baskin v. Bogan. Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler were married in Massachusetts last year. The two Indiana residents have been together 14 years and have two young children. Niki was diagnosed with stage four ovarian cancer five years ago. Without the protection of marriage and the rights provided by such, same sex couples are not guaranteed rights such as hospital visitation or custody of children in the event of a partner’s death.

Lead Plaintiff in Baskin v. Bogan, Rae Baskin, said of the decision issued today, “We’re thankful that we no longer have to worry about what would happen if one of us becomes ill and we have to rush to the hospital. We have waited for this moment since we decided to share our lives with each other.”

College officials’ search of professor’s home violates Fourth Amendment: Order

We are proud to announce this Order, which we received today in the case of Mundy v. Hambright, et al. This case involves a truly bizarre set of facts. Our client, a former college professor at Coastal College of Georgia, resigned after an employment-related dispute. After his resignation, the college president directed one of our client’s colleagues to enter our client’s home and search it for evidence of his whereabouts. This particular colleague also threatened our client’s life and sent him disturbing letters. The college president and the colleague sought to dismiss the complaint, arguing that their conduct did not implicate the Fourth Amendment. A federal court has rejected their argument and will allow this important Fourth Amendment case to proceed.

Mundy v. Hambright, et al. – Order Denying Motion to Dismiss by jamesradfordjr

Atheist Files Discrimination Suit Against Employer

During his first four years of employment with Olympia Sports, Jason Rines had no issues at work. Rines’ work performance consistently met with management’s approval and he received multiple bonuses throughout his employment with the company. As described in this article, after a new manager was hired at the store, Hines was forced to quit his job due to continued harassment due to his religious beliefs.

According to a complaint filed by Rines, store manager Lori Brooks spoke about her Christianity often during working hours, making it clear that her religion plays an integral part in her life. According to the lawsuit, after finding out that Rines is an atheist, Brooks began to harass him about his beliefs.

Brooks and another coworker often spoke about religion in Hines’ presence. On multiple occasions, despite her knowledge of his atheism, Brooks asked Hines to join her church . And finally, Brooks informed Rines that her intention was to hire two church members into supervisory positions at the store.

After upper management was made aware of Brooks’ behavior, they told her to “settle it down.”

In December, 2012, Brooks claimed that someone at the store had stolen money from her purse. The store’s district manager and loss prevention manager approached Rines regarding the theft. The complaint alleges that no other employees were questioned about the incident.

Not many days after, Brooks’ pastor approached Rines at the store and gave him a Christmas present. A compact disc of Christmas music and a book authored by a former atheist.

Rines approached Brooks explaining that due to the continued harassment, it was his intent to quit his job. According to the complaint, her reply was, “OK.”

In his claim of religious discrimination and harassment, Rines is seeking lost wages and compensatory and punitive damages under the Maine Human Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination due to an individual’s religion.

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced employment discrimination, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.