Apple Sued

Oops:

David Walsh, a former Network Engineer that worked at Apple from 1995 to 2007, is suing the company for violating California labor laws.

Filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of California, the complaint focuses on the fact that employees were required to work more than 40 hours a week or eight hours in a workday. Walsh’s suit says that Apple then denies the employees proper compensation for that work.

Walsh claims that Apple has created several job levels so they can make them exempt from receiving overtime wages. One example given is the use of “Senior” before the title “Network Engineer,” even though all Network Engineers perform the same duties.

The on-call requirements for Network Engineers were also an issue for Walsh. His on-call duties lasted for seven days, every six weeks — during this time he was on stand-by every night without additional compensation.

The lawsuit is seeking class action status, which would allow any employee during the class period to join the lawsuit.

I find this entirely believable. Unsurprising, even.

[LCSD] An argument in support of Jim Robinson suing his own district

I've wondered what goes through Jim Robinson's head when he's thinking about filing lawsuits against his own district (I am, of course, assuming he does think about - and he'd be a fool not to). That must be a terrible feeling, and not just because he ends up costing his down district money. It's clear that Robinson wants the district to succeed (your definition of success and/or preferred method of getting there may vary, possibly significantly), and the decision regarding whether or not he's going to take legal action can't be an easy one.

Note: My money is on lawsuit, for the record.

That said, given the latest shenanigans, and Josh's apparent inclination to try and marginalize the district superintendent while he's still under contract, I think there's a strong argument to be made in favor of Robinson filing a lawsuit for breach of contract:

Precedent.

Specifically, the idea that the school board can simply ignore parts of the superintendent's contract they don't like.

Remember, renegotiating the contract is one thing - clearly defining the job responsibilities of each party before anyone signs is certainly acceptable, and if the school board wants to take a more active role in hiring, they should make that clear to future employees and in future contracts.

Ignoring a signed contract that's still in effect is a bad idea.

What superintendent in their right mind would want to work in a district where the school board feels free to ignore the contract they signed?

For that matter, what other contracts the school board has approved does Josh feel like he can ignore? Maybe someone should ask him in the public comments section of the next meeting...

In any case, as I was wondering the frigid chilly streets of Corvallis with my pistachio-and-mint-chocolate gelato earlier this evening, I realized that one could argue that Robinson is practically, if not literally, obligated to sue his down district if for no other reason than to maintain the strength of the position for future superintendents.

Well? What say you, audience that only reads when I post about the LCSD? Am I on to something, or was that gelato laced with more than yummy flavors?

[RIAA} More on Oregon and UO's Refusal To Submit to the RIAA

Found via Blue Oregon, NYT columnist Adam Liptak discusses, summarizes and opines:

The surprise was not that 20-year-olds listen to Sting. It was that the university fought back.

Represented by the state’s attorney general, Hardy Myers, the university filed a blistering motion to quash the subpoena, accusing the industry of misleading the judge, violating student privacy laws and engaging in questionable investigative practices. Cary Sherman, the president of the Recording Industry Association of America, said the industry had seen “a lot of crazy stuff” filed in response to its lawsuits and subpoenas. “But coming from the office of an attorney general of a state?” Mr. Sherman asked, incredulous. “We found it really surprising and disappointing.”

Nice move, Mr. Sherman. Note how he implies through his word choice that the RIAA is in the right here without actually addressing the claims made by UO or Hardy Myers?

Oops - Oregon's AG isn't being fooled (but neither is he promoting music piracy, unfortunately):

In his filings, Mr. Myers claimed to be looking for a middle ground.

“Certainly it is appropriate for victims of copyright infringement to lawfully pursue statutory remedies,” Mr. Myers wrote last month. “However, that pursuit must be tempered by basic notions of privacy and due process.”

“The larger issue,” Mr. Myers said, “is whether plaintiffs’ investigative and litigation strategies are appropriate.”

Bingo. Everything I've seen suggets the RIAA is breaking the law six ways from Sunday to prove that.... other people are breaking the law. I'm glad to see that it's Oregon that's fighting back.

Frankly, if the RIAA is a corporation, they need their charter revoked.

DH: Alexander amends motion re: firing Robinson

I have one question: Did Meadowbrook know about his misreading of the statute beforehand, or did he really find out when the DH ran the story the first time?

Either answer's not good - the former means that he was playing politics in a bad way, and the latter means that he's not all that good at his job (or that he was in such a rush to get the request in before the break and while Robinson was gone that he didn't take the time to do all the research he should have).

On the other hand, apparently the complaint is very straightforward, far more straightforward than Alexander has been at board meetings:

In the complaint, Alexander says he wants to move that the board not renew the superintendent’s contract under ORS 342.513 “unless that action would violate” the contract.

The suit also says that Alexander is worried that if he goes ahead with such a motion, Robinson will sue him and anyone who votes for it. He is concerned, the suit says, “in part because Robinson sued plaintiff in this court last year ... for alleged contract violations.”

I'm disappointed. He gave away the game - not only does he say he wants to get rid of Robinson by any legal means (having discovered that he does not, in fact, have the power to do so illegally), he throws in the irrelevant sop about being sued (and the DH falls for it - by merely noting that Robinson eventually dropped the suit, it does not acknowledge why he filed or why he dropped, reasons that I file under the category "important context.")

Rick's running out of tricks, I think. He'd better hope he can manufacture a crisis again soon. Maybe it's time for Josh to step up to the plate...

More on Blogging, Lawsuits and School Districts

Via Slashdot, a story out of Texas that has some of the same components of Lebanon's ongoing learning experience - except, of course, that the person being sued is not anonymous and is a parent. From the Galveston Courier:

GALVESTON — The public school district has officially demanded that parent Sandra Tetley remove what it says is libelous material from her Web site or face a lawsuit for defamation.

Tetley received a letter Monday from the district’s law firm demanding she remove what it termed libelous statements and other “legally offensive” statements posted by her or anonymous users, and refrain from allowing such postings in the future. If she refuses, the district plans to sue her, the demand letter states.

...

One legal expert said the district’s move to sue Tetley is rare and unlawful. Under the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan, government entities cannot sue for libel — any court would toss out the “threatening” suit as being inconsistent with U.S. law, said Sandra Baron, executive director of New-York based Media Law Resource Center. She called the district’s potential lawsuit an intimidation tactic and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Interesting.

More background can be found in another Galveston Courier story:

GALVESTON — An appeals court ruled in 2002 that school districts can’t sue for defamation, so Galveston school district may face some hurdles if it moves forward with its lawsuit.

In a case that Galveston school district’s attorney argued is different, Port Arthur’s public school district in 2001 tried to sue a blogger for defamation. The Texas Ninth Court of Appeals tossed out the lawsuit based on black-letter law: New York Times v. Sullivan clearly prohibits such lawsuits.

Someone should look up the New York Times v. Sullivan case. I'm too lazy.

Sandra Tetley's blog.