Analyze and discuss

Real life lawsuits can provide fascinating issues for your analysis.We have some fascinating new issues from recent lawsuits for you this week, so you don’t need to be bored. Consider the following.Belief. Here’s an ethical question: Should you sue somebody for not providing a questionably illegal service?Second question: How dumb does your client have to be?A proposed class action was filed in Florida on behalf of consumers who claim they thought they could just pay $125 to get official permission to take their pets anywhere.Unfortunately, the “Official ESA” documents offered by a company called Support Pets LLC don’t exempt your beasts from “no-pets” policies.According to the plaintiffs, Support Pets promised “instant pre-approval” and then “doctor approval” from a “board certified medical doctor in 48 hours.”The plaintiff class, they wrote in the suit, “reasonably believed that Defendant could and would provide documentation and products that the company represented that it could and would provide.”They “reasonably” believed they could fork over $125 to a private company and get an all-access pass for their non-service dogs.If you believe that, maybe you do need a service dog.Blame-shifting: Here’s an interesting, although tragic, real-life issue for your discussion as outlined in a recent suit filed in Los Angeles.It seems that a guy got drunk or high or ill — the complaint doesn’t make it clear — and then proceeded to cause a fatal traffic accident. This happened after he was stopped by sheriff’s deputies and told he shouldn’t be driving.You can probably guess who’s suing whom.Yep. The incapacitated driver sued the County of Los Angeles because the deputies let him go.Said the complaint: “By detaining Plaintiff, taking him into custody, seizing his vehicle keys, informing him that probable cause existed for his arrest, and expressly advising him that he should not be driving, Defendants exercised complete control authority and control over Plaintiff …“Despite having exercised their governmental authority to prevent Plaintiff from driving, Defendants affirmatively recreated the very danger they had previously recognized and neutralized by returning Plaintiff’s vehicle keys and releasing him.”So the crash and plaintiff being jailed afterward was the deputies’ fault.Are cops the same as bartenders?Analyze and discuss.Empathic injury. This is for you labor lawyers out there: Can you be constructively terminated by seeing someone else harassed on the job?What if the harassment is hilarious and/or delicious?A former “retail sales consultant” for Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC sued the company in Connecticut for being “repeatedly exposed to a violent and hostile work environment.”Exposed to, but not subject to, this hostility as far as we can tell from the suit.This is what the plaintiff was exposed to: “Defendant had a policy that the highest-ranked Retail Sales Consultant for the prior month was instructed by his or her supervisor … to tie the lowest-ranked sales consultant for the prior month to a chair in the back office and thereafter assault that person by violently smashing a cream pie in their face.”Yum.Apparently, the plaintiff was so horrified by this prospect that he quit the job. There’s no mention of any pie recipients quitting.Secondary issue: Were underperforming employees getting their just desserts?Sorry. I had to ask that.Favorite quote of the week: From a New York Times article: “Quite honestly, I don’t have time in my life for explosive diarrhea.”Few of us do.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads