Showing posts with label Law Suit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law Suit. Show all posts

July 28, 2018

Black HIV Man Is Refused Hair Cut } He is Suing Barber Shop


Image result for Nikko Briteramos, 34

 This is Los Angeles folks and not MIssissippi and no body can tell me this has nothing to do with the Suprme Court Siding with the Flower Shop. HIV is settled Science since thousands if not millions of People with HIV Can not pass it on if they are Undetectable, never mind that hair, saliva,eating the hair he cuts cannot give this ________something of a man HIV. 🦊Adam
A Los Angeles barbershop is facing down a Lambda Legal lawsuit for allegedly refusing to cut a man’s hair because he is HIV-positive. 
Nikko Briteramos, 34, (Above)says that the owner of King of Kuts barbershop in Leimert Park told him he couldn’t risk serving positive people because word might reach his celebrity clients. 
“It was a small loss, maybe even a greater loss of dignity to some degree, but I’m tough enough to battle that,” said Briteramos. “But the fact that it was presented to me as this sort of matter of fact, like anyone would do the same sort of way, that’s what gave me the impression that this was a broader social issue.” 
Briteramos had been a regular at King of Kuts prior to the incident. But the trouble started, he said, when his former barber from Chicago coincidentally started working at the shop last October. 
Briteramos made international headlines as a college freshman at Huron University in South Dakota when he was arrested for criminal HIV exposure in 2001. At 19, he learned he might be positive after donating blood, according to court documents. Before confirming his diagnosis, Briteramos engaged in sexual activity with a female student at the college. The campus launched community-wide testing using his photo, and his story and status were widely publicized.
The fallout cost Briteramos his basketball scholarship. He dropped out of school. 
HIV criminalization laws are now largely seen as counterproductive to halting the virus because studies have shown they heighten stigma and discourage testing. 
In Briteramos’ case, the very public arrest followed him and deeply impacted his life.  
When Briteramos walked into King of Kuts last October, his former Chicago barber told the owner of the shop about Briteramos’ difficult past. 
“When it should have been Nikko’s turn, Rambo, the owner of King of Kuts, came outside to speak with him,” his lawsuit states. “He told Nikko that he would not cut his hair and the shop could not serve him because of his HIV status.” 
Briteramos said, after everything he had been through, he had come to expect that response from people.
“I felt bad but at the same time, I wasn’t 100 percent devastated,” he said. “I was frustrated in the very least.”
But Briteramos recognized that in some parts of the country, there was just one barbershop to get a haircut. 
Lambda Legal HIV Project Director Scott Schoettes says cases like Briteramos’ deeply impact marginalized people beyond the door of a single business or incident. 
“The service itself can have varying degrees of import and urgency, so if someone’s going in to get healthcare services and perhaps even in an emergency situation obviously the discrimination there is going to feel a lot harder to deal with and have greater consequences,” said Schoettes.
Briteramos’ suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges the cuttery violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s non-discrimination law. 
It seeks to cease the alleged discrimination and to award Briteramos unspecified damages. 
“Justice has to begin with a sort of apology at the very least, a taking back of that position that you wouldn’t cut someone’s hair, irrespective of their opinion of one’s own clientele,” said Briteramos. 
The lawsuit has been filed alongside the launch of a new public education campaign by Lambda and the Black AIDS Institute (BAI) that aims to reduce stigma around HIV in Black communities. 
Phill Wilson, CEO and founder of the Black AIDS Institute, said Briteramos’ case highlights the imperative of confronting discrimination to end the epidemic. 
“In addition, as a Black organization, we have to be ever vigilant in confronting injustice,” Wilson said. “It is a part of our survival. We fight those injustices to survive–and this is a case about injustice. It’s about bias. It’s about bigotry. It’s about discrimination. We have an obligation to be at the forefront of that effort; that’s essential.” 

June 10, 2017

Justice Wants Suit Against Trump Thrown Out but The Law says You Can Sue a President for Cause

The Justice Department asked a federal court late on Friday to dismiss a lawsuit that accused President Trump of violating the Constitution by continuing to own and profit from his businesses, arguing in part that, even if he had broken the law, it would be up to Congress, not a federal judge, to act.

In a 70-page brief, the government also argued that the lawsuit is based on a faulty interpretation of the Constitution and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any revenue loss because of Mr. Trump’s business operations.

The lawsuit was filed this year in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, a legal watchdog group. It is seeking a court order to force Mr. Trump to divest himself of his business holdings on the grounds that the Constitution prohibits him from accepting any economic benefit from foreign governments or from the United States government beyond his salary.

The other plaintiffs include a group that represents restaurants, the owner of a hotel and restaurant business in New York, and a woman who books hotel events in Washington.

Norman L. Eisen, the chairman of CREW, said the Justice Department’s claim that a federal court has no power to intervene — even if it finds a president’s behavior is unconstitutional — “is a remarkable assertion” that flies in the face of decades of judicial decisions.
The Justice Department’s lawyers argue that the injunction sought by the watchdog group would harm the president’s ability to perform his official duties and would ensnare him “in prolonged litigation over any number of transactions.” They contend that litigation would violate the separation of powers, which prohibits one branch of government from impairing another in carrying out its duties.

Even if the president’s continued ownership of his business is illegal, the government’s brief argued, “Congress is far better equipped than the courts” to fashion a remedy, perhaps by enacting legislation that would govern the president’s behavior.

Beyond that, the government’s lawyers contended, any injury claimed by CREW is “purely self-inflicted.” The group has alleged that it has been forced to divert its resources to challenge the president’s illegal actions. And the Justice Department said the other plaintiffs had not demonstrated any loss of business because of hotels or restaurants owned by the president’s companies.

Finally, the government contended, the Constitution does not prevent the president from profiting from commercial transactions conducted by his businesses, which Mr. Trump maintains he has kept at arm’s length. Such transactions, the brief argued, amount neither to gifts from a foreign government nor to economic benefits other than his presidential salary.

The law as interpreted by the Supreme Court during the Clinton Presidency:

During the Paula Jones lawsuit against then-President Clinton, was sued while being governor of Arkansas. It lasted all the way to the White House. Clinton fought it saying he was President and could not take the time to answer lawsuits for crimes committed before he was President.

Thanks to Paula Jones and the husband of Trump Assistant ( Her name is Kelly) they argued this case before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Ruled that a President can be sued for crimes committed during or before being elected President. Thanks to these backers of Trump now there is a law on the books that Mr. Trump can be sued while in office. I'm surprised I know this and Trump lawyer hasn't figured it out yet.

There are a few lawsuits coming down the pipes for all kinds of reasons. Even nonpayment of services. Trump was known as a deadbeat in paying for bills, no matter how big they were.

New York Times

May 3, 2017

A Business FollowingTheir Conscience: Funeral Home Refuses to Bury Gay Man

If there were not a law or if there was an exception because of religion or any other excuse this would happen again with like in the times of early AIDS. Bob’s husband now has a court that will listen to him and hopefully bring justice for him.
Brewer Funeral Services Inc. dab Picayune Funeral Home, as well as Ted Brewer and Henrietta Brewer are being sued for undisclosed sum

"I felt as if all the air had been knocked out of me," Zawadski said in a statement released Tuesday. "Bob was my life, and we had always felt so welcome in this community. And then, at a moment of such personal pain and loss, to have someone do what they did to me, to us, to Bob, I just couldn't believe it. No one should be put through what we were put through."

A lawsuit alleges a South Mississippi funeral home refused to provide services for a deceased man after the owners found out the man was gay.

Lambda Legal, a LGBTQ rights organization, announced Tuesday it had joined the lawsuit against Brewer Funeral Services Inc. dba Picayune Funeral Home, as well as Ted Brewer and Henrietta Brewer. The suit alleges breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Lambda filed on behalf of John Zawadski and John Gaspari. The lawsuit claims Picayune Funeral Home declined to provide any services for Zawadski’s husband, Robert Huskey, who died three days after his 86th birthday. Gaspari is listed as Huskey and Zawadski’s nephew in the lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks an undisclosed amount of monetary damages.

“What happened to this family is shocking,” said Beth Littrell of Lambda legal in a press release. “Almost immediately after losing his husband and partner of more than 50 years, Jack Zawadski’s grief was compounded by injustice and callous treatment from the very place that should have helped ease his suffering. Following Bob’s death, the funeral home, the only one in the area with a crematorium, refused to honor agreed-upon funeral arrangements after learning that Bob and Jack were married.”

Littrell said Zawadski and Huskey had been together for more than 50 years and had moved to Picayune about 20 years ago. They married in Mississippi after same-sex marriage bans nationwide were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015. In April 2016, after Huskey had fallen ill, his nephew made arrangements with the funeral home, according to Lambda Legal.

According to the lawsuit, the funeral home made repeated assurances they would take care of everything, but after Huskey’s death breached their agreements, communicating only that they did not “deal with their kind.”

The owners of the funeral home could not be reached for comment yesterday.

 Sun Herald
sand NBC

January 23, 2017

Law Suit Vs.Trump Continues but It Wont be Legally Easy


The government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sued President Trump on Monday for alleged ethics violations, describes its mission as reducing the influence of money in politics. 
That work will become a central question in its attempt to prove in federal court that Trump violated the Constitution's Emoluments Clause by failing to dissolve his business interests with foreign governments.  Before CREW can pursue its case, it must convince a judge in the Southern District of New York it has been legally harmed by Trump's alleged conduct. CREW says it has been forced to spend enormous time and resources in response to Trump's decision to maintain his business empire while president. 
 That tact is considered a long shot, because judges tend to want to see claims from people or groups that can show more obvious, direct harm. 
But the group thinks it has prior rulings on its side, and a relatively sympathetic audience in Manhattan's federal courts. 
"Our mission at CREW is to make government better, and instead we've had to spend a lot of time to deal with Donald Trump's unconstitutional behavior," vice-chair Norman Eisen told MSNBC.  Eisen, who served as an ethics lawyer for former President Barack Obama, also acknowledged that, if the case is allowed to proceed, CREW could force Trump to do what he has so far resisted: release his tax returns. 
"The lawsuit is being brought to enforce the Constitution. In order to establish the emoluments violations, we are going to need to see the president's tax returns," he said. “We're going to seek them in discovery, so this is a vehicle in order to enforce the Constitution to get those taxes."

If they get that far, their case will break new ground. The Emoluments Clause has not been tested in the modern era. And there is no comparable example of a president owning such a large business empire. 
The suit alleges that Trump violated the Constitution the moment he was sworn in as president on Friday because he had not divested his interests in the Trump Organization, including leases held by foreign governments in Trump Tower, bookings by foreign governments at Trump International Hotel in Washington and payments from foreign government-owned broadcasters related to "The Apprentice." The lawsuit also cites Trump deals involving China, India, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Turkey, Scotland, the Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan.  

Trump has insisted his plan to avoid potential conflicts of interest prevent any violations of the Emoluments Clause, which says: "No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust ... shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." 
Trump lawyer Sheri Dillon, who outlined the president's plan in a Jan. 11 press conference, said he would donate all hotel profits from foreign government payments to the U.S. Treasury. But CREW argues that it's illegal to accept the payments in the first place. 

September 2, 2016

Melania Trump Hires “The Hulk” Attorney to Sue Publication and a Blogger

Melania Trump, wife of the Republican nominee for U.S. President, filed a defamation lawsuit on Thursday against Mail Media, parent company of the UK publication, The Daily Mail, as well as a blogger named Webster Griffin Tarpley.

In a complaint lodged in Maryland Circuit Court, Ms. Trump is taking issue with an Aug. 19 article entitled, "Naked photoshoots, and troubling questions about visas that won't go away: The VERY racy past of Donald Trump's Slovenian wife."

She is represented by Charles Harder, the same attorney who handled Hulk Hogan's privacy suit in a victory for the former professional wrestler that bankrupted Gawker Media with a $140 million verdict.

The story in The Daily Mail covered Trump's journey to New York in the mid-1990s and raised questions about her past based on "highly-charged, lesbian-themed, nude photographs," the exact timing of when she traveled to the U.S. on a visa, and her stint working for a modeling agency. The article relied on the work of a Slovenian journalist who had co-authored an unauthorized biography of Ms. Trump as well as a report early last month in a Slovenian magazine to make the claim that her modeling agency was run by a New York entrepreneur, who allegedly also operated an escort agency for wealthy clients.

The article stated, "What Melania's [composite card] looked like only the people involved know, but it is no coincidence she got a rich husband."

According to Trump's lawsuit, "The statements of fact in the Daily Mail Article are false. Plaintiff did legitimate and legal modeling work for legitimate business entities and did not work for any 'gentleman's club' or 'escort' agencies. Plaintiff was not a sex worker, escort or prostitute in any way, shape or form, nor did she ever have a composite or presentation card for the sex business. Plaintiff did not come to the United States until 1996. Thus, Plaintiff did not, and could not have participated in a photo shoot in the United States or met her current husband in the United States prior to that time."

The lawsuit follows legal threats sent out by Trump's lawyer to a number of publications including Politico. 

Trump asserts that the The Daily Mail consciously doubted the truth of the claims in the article, but decided to publish it anyway, and that reporters there can't simply rely on "unsubstantiated" claims and "an unauthorized book written by malicious and bitter 'reporters' who have never met or spoken to Ms. Trump."

"The conduct of Daily Mail was despicable, abhorrent, intentional, malicious and oppressive, and thus justifies an award of punitive damages," states the complaint.

Besides defamation, Trump is also suing for tortious interference, contending that the published statements have gotten in the way of her "numerous" licensing and endorsement deals.

As for Tarpley, there's not much background on who this person is besides that he's an individual residing in Gaithersburg, Maryland and runs a blog on his own website.

In early April, Tarpley is said to have published a post entitled, "Where Is Melania Trump."

According to the complaint, the post talked about "rumors" that she was having an "apoplectic fit" after the "plagiarism incident" at the GOP convention. Tarpley's blog also mentioned she was "reportedly obsessed by fear of salacious revelations by wealthy clients from her time as a high-end escort."

Among the many many other statements in the blog post, Tarpley also allegedly wrote, "It is speculated that Trump will attempt to hide Melania's breakdown and rejection of campaigning from the media and the public for as long as possible."

Tarpley is said to have removed the blog post on Aug. 22 and published an apology and retraction. Nevertheless, he’s being sued in what could be a message to all others out there on the internet who might gossip about Donald Trump’s wife.

Eriq Gardner

This lawsuit will bring into the open Melania Trump’s past way beyond what was published about her.  Is this what she wants?   She is married to someone with a good track record of suing when he is displeased about what is being said. Needless to say they could not be happy with the Daily Mail story.
On Aug. 23 Adamfoxie Blog posted a story from Vanity Fair in which it claimed Melania Trump lied to the government on her schooling when she applied for a permit to work in the US.

August 26, 2013

NY State Sues The Donald

The state of New York has sued US property tycoon Donald Trump for $40m (£26m), alleging that his investment school engaged in illegal practices.
Prosecutors said the private Trump University had no licence and misled students into taking courses claiming to teach investment tricks.
More than 5,000 people allegedly paid over $40m to take the courses.
Mr Trump said in a tweet that New York State's attorney general was "trying to extort me with a civil law suit".
The tweet linked to a website saying that Trump University, as it was called until 2010, had a 98% approval rating.
In 2011 it changed its name to Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, but has attracted complaints and some civil lawsuits from people who said the school did not deliver what was promised to participants.
On Saturday Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said: "No-one, no matter how rich or popular they are, has a right to scam hard-working New Yorkers."
Between 2005-11, presecutors allege, the school made false claims about its classes, including that Mr Trump hand-picked the teachers.
But the celebrity property developer did not select a single instructor, and was barely involved with structuring the courses, the prosecutors added.

May 1, 2013

Rob Kardashian Law Suit for Assaulting Paparazzo on Dispute

Rob Kardashian has been slapped with a lawsuit by a female photographer who claims he assaulted her last month.
As Gossip Cop previously reported, a paparazzo namedAndra Vaik alleged that the reality star stole her camera’s memory card after she snapped shirtless photos of him outside a Los Angeles gym.
She filed a robbery report with police, but now claims Kardashian attacked her as well.
 “While this case is still in the preliminary stage, it is clear from our investigation that Robert Kardashian’s violent behavior and his use of force towards Ms. Vaik was completely unjustified,” her lawyer tells TMZ.
Kardashian hasn’t publicly commented on the ongoing dispute, but sources close to him have maintained that the photograph was trespassing on private property.


April 9, 2013

She Lost Her Hair Due To Cancer but Hooters Demands Wig }Lawsuit


Following brain surgery, your main worry should not be whether you’ll get fired at work for refusing to wear a wig that scrapes your scar. But former Hooters waitress Sandra Lupo contends in a lawsuit that’s what happened when she declined to don a wig and her hours were reduced so much, she was forced to quit.
She filed a disability discrimination lawsuit in Missouri against Hooters of St. Peters, LLC and Hooters of America LLC and is seeking $25,000 for mental and emotional distress, plus punitive damages, attorney fees and other relief.
"Hooters of America believes the lawsuit is without foundation, denies the accusations and has filed a motion that the lawsuit be dismissed," the company said in a statement to NBC News. Hooters, in an April 5 response to the court, denies most of her statements and says “its actions were taken for legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons.”
Hooters is a privately held chain of restaurants that bank on attractive waitresses wearing short shorts and cleavage-hugging shirts.
Lupo, who had been working at the Hooters of St. Peters, Mo., since 2005, was in her last six weeks of nursing school and was at her computer in June 2012 when she felt tingling and numbness on her left side. “I was bleeding out in my brain,” she told
She spent a week in the hospital following her July 2 surgery and was visited by her Hooters manager, according to her suit filed on the Circuit Court of St. Charles County.
The lawsuit claims that her store manager told her “she could return to work as soon as she was capable, and that, she could wear a ‘chemo cap’ or any other items of jewelry to distract from her lack of hair and the visibility of her cranial scar.”
Her hair had been cut to ¼-inch for the surgery.
On July 16, Lupo’s doctors gave her the all-clear to return to work. Soon after, she met with her manager and the Hooters' regional manager, who said she would be required to wear a wig at work, according to Lupo’s lawsuit.
Hooters’ April 5 filing does not address whether any of its employees told Lupo to wear a wig. It says that her manager “informed her she would need a head covering.”
At the time of the meeting, Lupo protested that she was unable to afford a wig, which can cost from several hundred to several thousands of dollars, according to her claim.
When she did return to work July 21, wigless, she was told a wig was required. She then borrowed a wig but it “caused extreme stress to her body because of the surgery and the healing wound,” according to the suit.
Hooters then reduced her hours “to the point that Plaintiff could not earn an income, thereby forcing Plaintiff to quit,” according to the suit. “It is and has been the routine custom, policy and practice of Defendants to reduce their employees’ hours which forces them to voluntarily resign thereby making them ineligible for unemployment compensation.”
The Hooters filing specifically denies that allegation.
After Lupo said she could not wear the wig, Hooters stopped scheduling her for as many hours, she said.
“I actually had to beg for one shift a week,” Lupo said. Pre-surgery, she was working several days a week while finishing nursing school. She had also trained staff and worked promotions for the restaurant, but no alternate duties were offered to her.
“They refused to accommodate it,” she said.
Today she is recovered, graduated and working as a registered nurse.
“Justice,” she said, is the main goal of the lawsuit
Posted at:

Featured Posts

The Food Delivery/Ride Companies Wont Allow Drivers to be Employees But California is Changing That

                               Hamilton Nolan Senior Writer. After a monumental...