Key Penn State witness seeks whistle-blower suit

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- The Penn State football assistant whose report of Jerry Sandusky allegedly attacking a child in the showers led to Joe Paterno's firing said in a court filing Tuesday that he is suing the school.

The "writ of summons" filed by Mike McQueary's lawyer described it as a whistle-blower case, but the brief document was not accompanied by a full complaint that would lay out the allegations.

The filing was first reported by the Centre Daily Times on its website.

McQueary's attorney, Elliott Strokoff of Harrisburg, did not respond to a phone message at his office late Tuesday. His father, John McQueary, declined to comment on his behalf.

McQueary, then a graduate assistant, has said he complained to Paterno of seeing the boy in a locker room shower naked with Sandusky.

He testified in December that he believed Sandusky was molesting the boy and "having some type of sexual intercourse with him," but added he was not "100 percent" certain they were having intercourse because of his vantage point.

Penn State's trustees have said they fired Paterno as coach partly because of his response to the incident. Paterno reported the matter to administrators Gary Schultz and Tim Curley, which trustees have called "his minimum legal duty" and "a failure of leadership." Paterno was fired as coach in November and died in January of lung cancer.

McQueary, who was a receivers coach, was placed on paid administrative leave by the school after the three men were arrested in November. All three have pleaded not guilty.

Penn State spokesman Dave La Torre said school officials were unable to comment because they had not seen the complaint.

Pennsylvania prosecutors said Monday they now believe the alleged shower assault took place a year earlier than they first claimed.

The attorney general's office said in a court filing that investigators concluded the alleged attack took place around Feb. 9, 2001. Previously filed court documents, including a grand jury report issued before Sandusky's arrest dated it March 1, 2002.

___

Associated Press writer Genaro Armas in State College contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Honda appeal seeks to overturn US woman's award

TORRANCE, California (AP) -- Lawyers for the American Honda Motor company are heading back to court trying to overturn a highly publicized small claims court award to a woman who sued over the poor fuel mileage of her hybrid Honda Civic.

Honda appealed the $9,867 (€7,536) award to Heather Peters after 1,700 hybrid owners followed her example and opted out of a class action settlement designed to give some 200,000 owners of the cars between $100 and $200 each plus a rebate if they buy a new Honda.

Peters sued the giant automaker when her hybrid failed to get a promised 50 miles per gallon. Her suit was a unique end run around the class action process which she said offered too little to Honda owners and too much to lawyers. She urged Honda owners to take the small claims route as she did.

Honda's appeal of the small claims verdict is due back in court Thursday before a superior court judge who is hearing testimony from both sides in what is essentially a retrial. According to small claims rules, this is the last chance for review of the case. It cannot be appealed further.

Unlike the small claims trial, Honda has legal representation and Peters, who renewed her law license, is presenting new evidence she has discovered since she received her award. She testified in the first part of the hearing last Friday with lawyers for Honda questioning her.

The class action settlement approved by a judge last month pays owners of about 200,000 Honda Civics from model years 2003 to 2009 between $100 and $200, plus a rebate toward the purchase of a new Honda. Owners of models from 2006 to 2008 get the larger amount due to additional claims over battery defects.

The judge has valued the settlement at $170 million. Attorneys for the plaintiffs have pegged the value between $87.5 million and $461.3 million, depending largely on how many people accept rebates of up to $1,500.

The judge approved more than $8 million in plaintiff attorneys' fees in his 43-page ruling.

View the original article here

Honda appeal seeks to overturn US woman's award

TORRANCE, California (AP) -- Lawyers for the American Honda Motor company are heading back to court trying to overturn a highly publicized small claims court award to a woman who sued over the poor fuel mileage of her hybrid Honda Civic.

Honda appealed the $9,867 (€7,536) award to Heather Peters after 1,700 hybrid owners followed her example and opted out of a class action settlement designed to give some 200,000 owners of the cars between $100 and $200 each plus a rebate if they buy a new Honda.

Peters sued the giant automaker when her hybrid failed to get a promised 50 miles per gallon. Her suit was a unique end run around the class action process which she said offered too little to Honda owners and too much to lawyers. She urged Honda owners to take the small claims route as she did.

Honda's appeal of the small claims verdict is due back in court Thursday before a superior court judge who is hearing testimony from both sides in what is essentially a retrial. According to small claims rules, this is the last chance for review of the case. It cannot be appealed further.

Unlike the small claims trial, Honda has legal representation and Peters, who renewed her law license, is presenting new evidence she has discovered since she received her award. She testified in the first part of the hearing last Friday with lawyers for Honda questioning her.

The class action settlement approved by a judge last month pays owners of about 200,000 Honda Civics from model years 2003 to 2009 between $100 and $200, plus a rebate toward the purchase of a new Honda. Owners of models from 2006 to 2008 get the larger amount due to additional claims over battery defects.

The judge has valued the settlement at $170 million. Attorneys for the plaintiffs have pegged the value between $87.5 million and $461.3 million, depending largely on how many people accept rebates of up to $1,500.

The judge approved more than $8 million in plaintiff attorneys' fees in his 43-page ruling.

View the original article here

Honda appeal seeks to overturn woman's award

TORRANCE, Calif. (AP) -- Lawyers for the American Honda Motor company are heading back to court trying to overturn a highly publicized small claims court award to a woman who sued over the poor fuel mileage of her hybrid Honda Civic.

Honda appealed the $9,867 award to Heather Peters after 1,700 hybrid owners followed her example and opted out of a class action settlement designed to give some 200,000 owners of the cars between $100 and $200 each plus a rebate if they buy a new Honda.

Peters sued the giant automaker when her hybrid failed to get a promised 50 miles per gallon. Her suit was a unique end run around the class action process which she said offered too little to Honda owners and too much to lawyers. She urged Honda owners to take the small claims route as she did.

Honda's appeal of the small claims verdict is due back in court Thursday before a superior court judge who is hearing testimony from both sides in what is essentially a retrial. According to small claims rules, this is the last chance for review of the case. It cannot be appealed further.

Unlike the small claims trial, Honda has legal representation and Peters, who renewed her law license, is presenting new evidence she has discovered since she received her award. She testified in the first part of the hearing last Friday with lawyers for Honda questioning her.

The class action settlement approved by a judge last month pays owners of about 200,000 Honda Civics from model years 2003 to 2009 between $100 and $200, plus a rebate toward the purchase of a new Honda. Owners of models from 2006 to 2008 get the larger amount due to additional claims over battery defects.

The judge has valued the settlement at $170 million. Attorneys for the plaintiffs have pegged the value between $87.5 million and $461.3 million, depending largely on how many people accept rebates of up to $1,500.

The judge approved more than $8 million in plaintiff attorneys' fees in his 43-page ruling.

View the original article here

Florida seeks to delay approval of BP settlement

By Erin Geiger Smith

(Reuters) - The Attorney General for the State of Florida has asked a federal court to delay granting preliminary approval of BP Plc's $7.8 billion settlement with businesses and individuals suing over the massive 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Attorney General Pamela Bondi, representing her constituents, said in a filing in Louisiana federal court on Friday that there is not enough information available about the settlement terms.

She asked that the court "delay any immediate decision on the preliminary approval" of the settlement and to establish a schedule to allow interested parties an opportunity to review the settlement.

The settlement requires approval from U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier.

London-based BP reached the agreement in early March with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, or PSC, which represents condominium owners, fishermen, hoteliers, restaurateurs and others who say their livelihoods were damaged by the April 20, 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and subsequent oil spill. The settlement came just before a three-part trial was scheduled to begin in New Orleans.

Lawyers for the PSC did not immediately respond to requests for comment; BP also did not immediately respond.

The proposed settlement would resolve only one part of BP's legal fight stemming from the explosion. It continues to face charges brought by the U.S. government, as well as lawsuits from five U.S. states whose coastlines were oiled, and its partners in the ill-fated well.

A delay in the preliminary approval could slow down those other parts of the litigation, as well as result in further delays in payments for those who businesses suffered due to the oil spill. In an order issued when the settlement was announced, Judge Barbier said it "would likely result in a realignment of the parties in this litigation and requires substantial changes" to the trial plan.

The two year anniversary of the explosion, which killed 11 people, is one week from Friday.

The case is In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon," U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, No. 10-02179.

(Reporting By Erin Geiger Smith; Editing by Bob Burgdorfer)

View the original article here

EEOC seeks rehearing in trucker harassment case

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asked a federal appeals court Monday to reconsider a ruling that could hurt its ability to pursue class-action discrimination lawsuits on behalf of workers in the Midwest.

The agency filed a petition asking the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a February ruling that dismissed a lawsuit filed on behalf of more than 100 women who claimed they were sexually harassed by male drivers at an Iowa trucking company.

The 2-1 ruling set a new standard requiring EEOC to identify every affected worker, investigate their claims and seek informal settlements before suing a company. The ruling affects lawsuits filed anywhere in the federal circuit that stretches from Arkansas to the Dakotas and sets a higher bar than the agency faces elsewhere.

EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez said the standard would make it more expensive and time-consuming to bring large-scale harassment and discrimination cases. The agency has not yet issued guidance to investigators about the new standard, hoping the ruling will be overturned, he said.

"The panel's unprecedented imposition of this new requirement will impede EEOC's ability to enforce ... civil rights laws in workplaces with the most widespread discrimination," agency lawyers argued in Monday's filing.

Federal rules say petitions for rehearing are granted infrequently and discouraged except for those cases "necessary to maintain and secure the uniformity of decisions or that raise questions of exceptional importance." The judges who originally heard the case could take a second look or a majority of the 11 active judges on the court could decide to review the case.

Business groups are closely watching the case at a time when the EEOC has brought more class-action discrimination cases. They say the agency has been overly aggressive at times, bringing lawsuits that can cost millions before identifying the scope of the legal problems at issue.

The agency last year filed a record-high 23 systemic discrimination cases, Lopez said. Recent cases have led to a $20 million judgment against Verizon, Inc. over an attendance policy that allegedly discriminated against disabled workers and a $3 million settlement for black workers passed over for janitorial jobs at Chicago's O'Hare airport.

Monday's filing is the latest development in a lawsuit that accuses Cedar Rapids, Iowa-based CRST Van Expedited, Inc. of subjecting female truck drivers to a hostile workplace by failing to stop rampant sexual harassment in its training program.

Current and former female drivers say male trainers pressured them to have sex, made constant sexual remarks, groped and even assaulted them during cross-country drives that could last for weeks. The EEOC lawsuit was filed before the agency knew how many employees would be part of the case. The agency eventually identified 270 women, though only 150 showed up for depositions.

The agency's tactics angered U.S. District Judge Linda Reade, who called them a "sue first, ask questions later litigation strategy," dismissed the lawsuit and ordered the EEOC to reimburse the trucking company $4.4 million in legal fees. The appeals court largely upheld Reade's decision dismissing the case, but threw out the fee award.

EEOC alleged Monday that the trucking company misled its investigator by claiming executives were aware of fewer internal harassment complaints than had been lodged.

"It is particularly inappropriate to fault EEOC for not identifying victims during the investigation when CRST knowingly withheld that information," the filing said. "The majority's rule all but encourages employers to lie to EEOC during investigations with the hope of benefiting later if EEOC attempts enforcement in court."

The company's top lawyer, Eric Baker, said Monday he had expected the petition for rehearing but declined additional comment. In an interview last month, he said the firm took complaints seriously and would be exonerated.

View the original article here

Current TV countersues Olbermann, seeks damages

Wall Street Week Ahead: Will earnings spark further declines?Reuters

Since October, estimates for first-quarter earnings growth have tumbled while the S&P 500 has surged. With the …

View the original article here