Two Black coaches joined Brian Flores on Thursday in his lawsuit alleging racist hiring practices by the NFL when there are vacancies for coaches and general managers.
The updated lawsuit in Manhattan federal court added coaches Steve Wilks and Ray Horton.
The lawsuit said Wilks was discriminated against by the Arizona Cardinals in 2018 when he was hired as a “bridge coach” but was given no meaningful chance to succeed, while Horton was subjected to discriminatory treatment when he was given a sham interview for the Tennessee Titans head coach position in January 2016.
Flores also criticized the NFL in the rewritten lawsuit for its response to the lawsuit he brought against it and its teams several weeks ago.
The lawsuit added the Houston Texans to the teams Flores has alleged discriminated against him, saying the Texans engaged in “blatant retaliation” by removing him from consideration for its head coach vacancy after he sued the league.
In a release from the lawsuit’s attorneys, Wilks said he hoped the lawsuit would help bring racial equality to the league. Arizona replaced Wilks with Kliff Kingsbury, a white man with no NFL coaching experience, and gave a white general manager an extension despite a drunk driving conviction.
The lawsuit, as it did previously, seeks class-action status and unspecified damages from the league and individual teams. It alleges that the league has discriminated against Flores and other Black coaches for racial reasons, denying them positions as head coaches and other top coaching posts as well as a chance to be a general manager.
It also highlights the lack of progress in the two decades since the “Rooney Rule” — named after former Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney — was created to give more minority candidates opportunities to become a head coach.
In 2020, the NFL amended the Rooney Rule to stipulate teams must interview at least two minority candidates not associated with their team for a head coaching vacancy and one minority candidate for coordinator positions and high-ranking front office positions, including general manager.
For nearly three years, former President Donald Trump has avoided facing journalist E. Jean Carroll in court on accusations that he raped her then defamed her when he claimed “she’s not my type” and said she was lying. A federal judge has finally had enough.
In a court order Friday, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan berated Trump’s “bad faith” delay tactics and shot down his latest maneuver: an attempt to use New York’s recently expanded free speech legal protections.
“[Carroll’s] only claim in this case is a single count of defamation. It could have been tried and decided—one way or the other—long ago. The record convinces the court that the defendant’s litigation tactics, whatever their intent, have delayed the case,” Kaplan wrote.
“My client E. Jean Carroll and I could not agree more,” Robbie Kaplan, Carroll’s lawyer, said in a statement to The Daily Beast.
Carroll is a journalist whose “Ask E. Jean” column ran in Elle magazine for nearly 30 years. In June 2019, New York Magazine ran an excerpt from her book in which she claimed—in detail—how Donald Trump raped her in the dressing room of the high-end Manhattan department store Bergdorf Goodman decades ago.
When Trump was asked about the accusations at the White House, he whipped out the most distasteful defense imaginable.
“I’ll say it with great respect. Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?” he told reporters.
Carroll sued for defamation in New York state court, then shifted her lawsuit to federal court.
In his order on Friday, the judge described how Trump took both usual and ridiculous steps to prevent the case from moving forward.
The former president tried to avoid being served—that is, receiving an official notice that he was sued—by remaining fortified in the White House or his luxury condo in Manhattan.
The mother of a Black sixth-grader filed a legal claim against the Palmdale School District Thursday over a racist rant directed at her son and his family by a teacher who failed to sign off Zoom following a student-teacher session.
In the video, the teacher can be heard disparaging the family and referring in a negative way to their ethnicity, according to the claim, which is a precursor to a lawsuit.
“The horrible comments the teacher made in the video are truly heartbreaking for a mother to hear and for her young son to hear,” said attorney John C. Taylor, who represents the claimant.
“It’s unthinkable that an educator would mock and belittle this family and there is no doubt that this incident has scarred them,” he said.
“All children are entitled to receive an educational experience free of discrimination and this video has demonstrated what minority students often face behind the scenes today.”
Read the complete article at: NBC Los Angeles
The mother of a Black sixth-grader filed a legal claim against the Palmdale School District Thursday over a racist rant directed at her son and his family by a teacher who failed to sign off Zoom following a student-teacher session. In the video, the teacher can be heard disparaging the family and referring in a negative way to their ethnicity, according to the claim, which is a precursor to a lawsuit. “The horrible comments the teacher made in the video are truly heartbreaking for a mother to hear and for her young son to hear,” said attorney John C. Taylor, who represents the claimant. “It’s unthinkable that an educator would mock and belittle this family and there is no doubt that this incident has scarred them,” he said. “All children are entitled to receive an educational experience free of discrimination and this video has demonstrated what minority students often face behind the scenes today.” Accuses Teacher Accuses Teacher Accuses Teacher Accuses Teacher
Five female anchors at NY1 said Thursday they have “mutually agreed” to leave the local news station after settling their age and gender discrimination lawsuit. Roma Torre, Kristen Shaughnessy, Jeanine Ramirez, Vivian Lee, and Amanda Farinacci had alleged that managers forced them off the air in favor of younger anchors with less experience.
Torre, one of NY1’s longest serving hosts, told The New York Times last year, “We feel we are being railroaded out of the place.” After filing the suit, they said they’d been shunned and further sidelined by colleagues.
The five women who filed the lawsuit collectively have more than 100 years of broadcasting experience. They were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of their settlement agreement and they no longer will appear on NY1.
Read the complete article at: The Daily Beast
Five female anchors at NY1 said Thursday they have “mutually agreed” to leave the local news station after settling their age and gender discrimination lawsuit. Roma Torre, Kristen Shaughnessy, Jeanine Ramirez, Vivian Lee, and Amanda Farinacci had alleged that managers forced them off the air in favor of younger anchors with less experience. Torre, one of NY1’s longest serving hosts, told The New York Times last year, “We feel we are being railroaded out of the place.” After filing the suit, they said they’d been shunned and further sidelined by colleagues. The five women who filed the lawsuit collectively have more than 100 years of broadcasting experience. They were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of their settlement agreement and they no longer will appear on NY1. Torre, one of NY1’s longest serving hosts, told The New York Times last year, “We feel we are being railroaded out of the place.” After filing the suit, they said they’d been shunned and further sidelined by colleagues. The five women who filed the lawsuit collectively have more than 100 years of broadcasting experience. They were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of their settlement agreement and they no longer will appear on NY1. Anchorwomen Anchorwomen Anchorwomen
U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Sues U.S. Soccer for Gender Discrimination
U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Sues U.S. Soccer for Gender Discrimination
Twenty-eight members of the world champion United States women’s soccer team significantly escalated their long-running fight with the country’s soccer federation over pay equity and working conditions, filing a gender discrimination lawsuit on Friday.
The suit in United States District Court in Los Angeles, comes only three months before the team will begin defense of its Women’s World Cup title at this summer’s tournament in France. In their filing and a statement released by the team, the 28 players described “institutionalized gender discrimination that they say has existed for years.The discrimination, the athletes said affects not only their paychecks but also where they play and how often, how they train, the medical treatment and coaching they receive and even how they travel to matches The players involved stars like Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe and Carli Lloyd and their teammates include some of the most accomplished and best known female athletes in the world members of a team that has been a leading force in women’s sports for more than a generation.
U.S. Women’s Soccer Players’ Legal Complaint Against U.S. Soccer
The court filing of the lawsuit brought by U.S. Women’s Soccer players against the United States Soccer Federation alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. (PDF, 25 pages, 0.23
Johnny Depp files $50 million defamation lawsuit against Amber Heard
Johnny Depp is demanding damages from ex-wife Amber Heard after she wrote an op-ed characterizing herself as a domestic abuse victim. Depp’s lawsuit calls Heard’s allegations of domestic violeHeard purported to write from the perspective of a public figure representing domestic abuse and claimed that she ‘felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out’ when she ‘spoke up against sexual violence Depp’s lawyers state in the lawsuit obtained by PEOPLE. The op-ed depended on the central premise that Ms. Heard was a domestic abuse victim and that Mr. Depp perpetrated domestic violence against her “Mr. Depp never abused Ms. Heard. Her allegations against him were false when they were made in 2016. They were part of an elaborate hoax to generate positive publicity for Ms. Heard and advance her career Depp’s lawyers say in the lawsuit Depp’s lawyers filed a $50 million defamation suit against Heard on Friday over her Dec. 18, 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post titled I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.In response, Heard’s rep said in a statement: This frivolous action is just the latest of Johnny Depp’s repeated efforts to silence Amber Heard. She will not be silenced. Mr. Depp’s actions prove he is unable to accept the truth of his ongoing abusive behavior.
PM’s counsel questions defamation suit’s maintainability
The lawyer for Prime Minister Imran Khan on Thursday requested a local court to return the defamation lawsuit filed by former MPA Fauzia Bibi against his client over the horse-trading charge, insisting it isn’t authorised to hear the case.
The premier’s counsel, Babar Awan, filed an application with additional district and sessions judge Shah Waliullah Hamid Hashmi under Order 7 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure saying the news conference addressed by his client on the matter was held in Islamabad and not in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and therefore, the case wasn’t maintainable.
The court directed the plaintiff’s counsel, Syed Gufranullah Shah, to file a written reply to the application and fixed Dec 12 for the hearing into the case.
The former MPA, who was elected on PTI’s ticket on a seat reserved for women, has filed the lawsuit for the recovery of damages to the tune of Rs500 million for defaming her through leveling ‘baseless’ allegations against her by Mr Imran in a news conference accusing her of selling her vote in the Senate elections.
The lawsuit was filed in June this year under the Defamation Ordinance 2002. The only defendant in the lawsuit was PTI chief Imran Khan, who later became the prime minister.
Mr Babar Awan contended that the news conference in question was addressed in Islamabad, whereas the committee constituted for taking action against the plaintiff was also constituted there.
He added that as the cause of action arose there and therefore, it was not in the jurisdiction of the court to deal with the case.
Following several hearings into the case, the court had decided on Oct 24 to begin ex-parte proceeding against Prime Minister Imran Khan over his failure to respond to the court’s summons despite repeated notices.
However, Mr Babar Awan later submitted his power of attorney (wakalatnama) on behalf of the prime minister and requested the court to recall its order of conducting ex-parte proceedings against his client.
Plaintiff Fauzia Bibi said in the March 3 Senate polls, she had followed the direction with effect to vote for all candidates of her party nominated for general and reserved seats for women and technocrats.
She added that Imran Khan later accused her through media of being involved in horse-trading.
The plaintiff said she clarified her position by taking oath on the Holy Quran and denied the allegations and that she even replied to the show cause notice issued by the PTI Secretariat to her on the defendant’s directives.
Why Elon Musk Could Lose Defamation Suit Over Calling Thai Cave Rescuer A Pedophile
After Elon Musk apologized for his tweet calling Vernon Unsworth, a Brit who took part in the Thai-cave rescue this past summer, a “pedo guy,” the Tesla CEO emailed Buzzfeed, called him a “child rapist” and wrote, “I f*cking hope he sues me.”
Wish granted!
This week, Unsworth filed a defamation lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging Musk caused him “worldwide damage” and that his tweets, which reached Musk’s 22.5 million followers before being deleted, were part of a “campaign to impugn” him. Unsworth is requesting damages in excess of $75,000.
Musk may have a bigger fight on his hands than he had anticipated, though, because Unsworth’s claim is strong even under California defamation law’s strict actual malice standard — and also because Unsworth’s attorney L. Lin Wood has already promised to file a similar lawsuit in London.
Leading Up to the Lawsuit
In June, the dramatic rescue of a boys’ soccer team and their coach made international news after they were trapped in the Tham Luang Nang Non cave system in northern Thailand. Unsworth is an experienced caver who knows the underground passageways well and volunteered to aid in the operation, which ended in the successful retrieval of the team and coach in July.
During the course of the rescue, Musk publicly promised to build and supply a mini-submarine that would be able to navigate the narrow tunnels of the caves and rescue the children and their coach. This device, however, was never used.
Unsworth appeared on CNN and criticized Musk’s mini-submarine offer, calling it a “PR stunt” and suggested Musk could “stick his submarine where it hurts.” These comments prompted Musk’s tweet that referred to Unsworth as “pedo guy,” slang for a pedophile. Musk doubled down in a subsequent tweet, “Bet ya a signed dollar it’s true.”
Musk later deleted those tweets and apologized, claiming his words were “spoken in anger after Mr. Unsworth said several untruths & suggested I engage in a sexual act with the mini-sub,” but he never retracted allegations of pedophilia.
In late August, the controversy arose again when Musk essentially dared Unsworth to bring a lawsuit, tweeting, “You don’t think it’s strange he hasn’t sued me?” And then came the Buzzfeed emails, which included the claim that Unsworth had moved to Thailand to marry a 12-year-old bride.
California Defamation Law
Defamation is the publication of a false statement that damages someone’s reputation or livelihood. California recognizes “defamation per se,” in which a statement is defamatory on its face; one example of this type of defamation is a statement that someone is guilty of a crime.
Public figures in California must show that the speaker of the alleged defamatory statement acted with actual malice, “that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff,” with the knowledge that the statements are false or actions that show a reckless disregard for their falsity. This standard is high and rightfully so because it works to protect the freedom of speech.
Trump Lawyer Says Other Women’s Claims Don’t Belong in Zervos Lawsuit
President Donald Trump told a New York judge that details about more than a dozen women who’ve accused him of sexual misconduct over the years are irrelevant to a defamation lawsuit filed by a former contestant on “The Apprentice” who claims he groped her.
Summer Zervos, who says Trump defamed her when he dismissed her allegation as a lie, is demanding the details as part of an improper “fishing expedition” to gather damaging information, Trump’s lawyer Marc Kasowitz said in a Sept. 14 filing in state court in Manhattan.
“It is telling that virtually none of the women about whom plaintiff seeks disclosure have brought their own action,” Kasowitz said in the filing. Zervos only wants the information “to improperly attempt to show that defendant has a propensity to act in a similar manner here.”
Because such evidence isn’t admissible, Kasowitz said, Trump shouldn’t have to turn it over.
Trump May Be Questioned in Ex-Apprentice Contestant’s Suit
To bolster his argument, Kasowitz cited a lawsuit by a woman who accused her psychiatrist of engaging in an improper sexual relationship with her. In that case, Kasowitz said, a New York appeals court ruled that the woman “could not admit evidence of defendant’s improper relationships with other patients.”
Zervos, who met with Trump in hopes of securing a job after her Apprentice appearance in 2005, claims he “ambushed” her on more than one occasion starting in 2007, kissing her, touching her breast and pressing against her. She is one of at least 19 women who have come forward accusing him of sexual misconduct.
Trump has repeatedly denied such allegations.
New York Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Schecter in May allowed Zervos to move forward with her case after Trump asserted immunity as a sitting president. Trump agreed to provide written answers in a deposition.
He has called the lawsuit politically motivated, saying he can’t be held liable for engaging in political speech that’s protected by the First Amendment.
The case is Zervos v. Trump, 150522/2017, New York Supreme Court, New York County.
Elon Musk sued by British cave diver for defamation
A British cave explorer on Monday sued Elon Musk for defamation, alleging that Musk made “unlawful, unsupportable, and reprehensible accusations” when he called the man a pedophile on Twitter.
The explorer, Vernon Unsworth, filed the suit in federal court in Los Angeles. It asks for $75,000 for compensatory damages and an unspecified amount for punitive damages, and it says a second lawsuit will be filed in the United Kingdom for reputational damage suffered there.
“Mr. Unsworth brings this action to hold Musk legally accountable for his wrongdoing and to vindicate his reputation,” the suit said.
A representative for Musk said they had not yet seen the lawsuit and had no immediate comment.
Musk, chief executive of automaker Tesla and rocket company SpaceX, began attacking Unsworth in July after Unsworth criticized Musk’s attempt to assist the rescue of a youth soccer team from a Thai cave.
Musk called the man a “pedo” in a tweet, with no evidence to support his accusation. Musk later apologized before reviving his attack in late August.
Unsworth has been exploring caves since 1971 and has periodically visited Thailand since 2011, according to the lawsuit. He dives there and shares a house with his significant other, a 40-year old owner of a nail salon, the suit says.
Though Musk apologized, he also appeared to goad Unsworth into filing the suit.
“You don’t think it’s strange he hasn’t sued me?” Musk wrote in reply to another Twitter user on Aug. 28.
Musk welcomed the threat of a lawsuit in an Aug. 30 email to BuzzFeed News, telling the news organization, “I f—— hope he sues me.”
The filing of the suit coincides with a scheduled announcement by SpaceX later on Monday, revealing the name of a person who has paid to travel around the moon.
The lawsuit says he is not a pedophile, has never raped anyone and is not a child sex-trafficker, and it says Musk’s comments otherwise “were published with actual malice,” a key factor in U.S. defamation law.
Unsworth has suffered emotional distress as a result of the accusations, the suit says.
“Elon Musk has practically been begging to be sued for libel on his claims,” said Chip Stewart, associate dean and professor of journalism at Texas Christian University, who focuses on law and digital media. “Now he’ll get his day in court.
“It’s not hard to imagine a jury finding presumed damages here,” Stewart said. “And if Unsworth can show malice, again not hard to imagine, probably punitive damages, too.”