Litigation News

As the kids head back to school, we plan our final Labor Day weekend getaways, and brace ourselves for the fall, here’s some information on a few cases that heated up over the summer months that did not receive a lot of media attention, but piqued my interest.

In California:

On July 31^st, a state appeals court reinstated a lawsuit against Glock, Inc., a well-known gun manufacturer, filed by a Los Angeles policeman paralyzed from the waist down when his 3-year-old son shot him with his service pistol.  The lawsuit alleges the Glock 21 had inadequate safeguards against accidental discharge, because it had a “light trigger pull” and did not have a grip safety, a device attached to the pistol grip the shooter must deactivate before firing.

While off duty in 2006, Chavez was called to report to testify in court, and put his son in the backseat of his vehicle, so he could drop the boy off at his grandfather’s home.  Chavez forgot he had his loaded Glock beneath the front seat.  Less than ten minutes into the drive, the child picked up the pistol and shot his father in the back.

The lawsuit against Glock was dismissed two years ago, after a Los Angeles judge, Judge Kevin Brazile, concluded after hearing expert testimony that the advantages to the gun’s design outweighed any inherent risks. The judge also ruled the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate an alternative design would have prevented the shooting.

In overturning the dismissal, the Second District Court of Appeal, in a 3-0 ruling, held there was a factual dispute, and enough evidence that a jury could have concluded the grip safety  was strong enough to prevent a 3-year-old from firing the weapon, thus minimizing “the risk of accidental discharge without undermining performance.”  The case was remanded to the trial court for trial on the merits.

In the U.S. Supreme Court:

The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the 1^st amendment barred an employment discrimination lawsuit by a terminated employee (and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission) when the employer was a religious organization, and the employee one of its ministers.  After a thorough evaluation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause, the Court ruled such lawsuits were, in fact, barred.

In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 US ____ (2012), the Church operated a small elementary school.  The employee was a teacher at the school, and was a commissioned minister by the Church.  She received a special housing allowance on her income taxes because her activities were “in the exercise of ministry.”  After requesting disability accommodations from the school, she threatened to take legal action.  The Church responded to the threat by rescinding the employee’s call to the ministry and terminating her employment, citing her insubordination and disruptive behavior among other things.

The EEOC sued the Church, alleging retaliation for threatening to file an ADA lawsuit, and sought reinstatement, back-pay, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and other relief.  The Church moved for summary judgment, claiming the lawsuit was barred by the First Amendment and the ministerial exception:  an exception to the application of employment discrimination statutes to religious organizations and their “ministerial” employees.

The District Court granted summary judgment; the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, vacated the decision and remanded, ruling the ministerial exception did not apply because her primary function as a school teacher was not religious in nature.  Her claim would not require the court to analyze church doctrine.  The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Chief Justice Roberts authored the unanimous decision; the Supreme Court’s first consideration of the ministerial exception.  His review of the history of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment started with the Magna Carta in 1215.  Suffice it to say, it’s an interesting read for any history buff.  The Court concluded by agreeing a ministerial exception does exist, and that it precludes application of employment discrimination legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.  The exception is to be broadly interpreted to include religious organization employees in addition to ministers and religious teachers.  Not all claims were strictly foreclosed by this decision, however, leaving some situations still open to argument; including breach of contract or some vaguely described “tortious conduct” by the employer.

 

Questions?  Concerns about how pending lawsuits or legislation may impact your business?  Comment, or send me an email or call, and let’s discuss. 

Nothing in this blog is intended to create an attorney-client relationship.  This article is intended to provide a general overview of the current status of the law for informational purposes only, and is not intended to constitute, or serve as a substitute for, a professional legal consultation.  Laws change every day; please consult an attorney regarding the current status of the law, and how the law affects your specific circumstances. Thank you.