“The jury has reached a verdict.” I look up at the courtroom deputy, a woman of about forty with coal-black,, obviously dyed hair. In her wrinkled yellow blouse, she walked to me and smirks. Maybe she isn’t really smirking at me. I don’t know her, maybe she just looks that way at everyone. (Please, please, please, let this be my imagination! Don’t be so paranoid.) My chest tightens as I respond, “Okay.” She turns around and rushes back through the courtroom door, her scuffed pumps clicking as I watch her retreat. I arise to find my client, Mary, and notice that my hands quiver and my knees feel weak. I inhale deeply and walk down the hall where Mary sits with her mother.
“We need to get back to the courtroom. They have a verdict.” I try to walk at a steady pace toward the imposing courtroom doors. I don’t want my client to see that I am nervous. Bad form. She and her mother walk behind me, Mary grabbing her mother’s arm, as I swing the heavy wooden door open and hold it for them. People are gathering. I open the gate to go to the counsel table, with Mary behind me. Mary’s frumpy mother, Alice, dressed in polyester slacks and a blouse, lumbers over to the spectator pews.
The counsel table is fairly cleared, since I have a compulsion to neaten things up while waiting for a jury, not a normal inclination on my part. The only time I can recall the need to straighten up is while waiting for a jury. Weird. I search under the table in a file box for a pad and pencil and find them neatly by the exhibits. As I set the pad on the table, I steady myself. I look at Mary and try to smile. Mary looks scared and right now I don’t want to comfort her. That’s why I had her bring her mother. I just want this moment to end. I feel dread, and I can’t shake the feeling.
The judge, looking somewhat disheveled enters the courtroom through the door from his chambers, straightening his long, black robe. “Let the jury in.” The deputy moves to the door leading to the back hallway and slowly opens it. The jurors are lined up behind the door, ready to be seated. I look away. I don’t want to see their faces. I don’t want to know if they are looking at me or my client. Frankly, I wish I were unconscious, or anywhere but here.
Everyone seems to move in slow motion and my heart pounds. The judge bellows, “Have you reached a verdict?” A middle-aged man in a tie in the second row, holding papers, responds, “We have, Your Honor.” The courtroom deputy moves toward the man, her arm outstretched. Everything is moving in slow motion. It reminds me of when I was in a car wreck and saw the other car running the light and heading toward me and I could not move in time. I felt paralyzed. Slow motion. She takes the papers to the judge.
The judge examines each page. It’s almost as if I can see his lips move. Hurry up, dammit! My heart cannot take this much stress. I avoid turning to look at Mary. I don’t want to be strong for her right now. Just read the damn verdict!
“On the claim of Mary Gutierrez against Morris Trucking Company for sex discrimination, we the jurors find in favor of . . .” Here, the judge pauses. I don’t know why they do that. Too much television courtroom drama. Read it, dammit. The judge finally states, “Morris Trucking Company.”
The cannonball tears into my chest and I unsuccessfully try to steady myself. Instead, I physically recoil. I hope no one saw that. I take a deep breath and turn to Mary, her eyes filled with tears. “I am sorry,” I whisper, hoping my voice does not betray how devastated I feel. What else is there to say? Sorry, I fucked up that cross-examination, sorry you didn’t tell me of your affair with your co-worker, sorry I am just not a good enough lawyer. Sorry. I hate feeling sorry. And angry. Here comes the anger. I hate feeling anger. Push that back down.
The defense counsel, all three of them, are high-fiving each other with the human resources director of their client. I wonder who will be buying their drinks tonight. God, I don’t want to shake their hands. He’s coming over, shit! Rage is building. Stem it, now!
“You tried a good case,” the asshole four-eyed bald, ugly excuse for a human being says with his right arm extended. “Congratulations,” weakly escapes my lips as I look at my shoes. What a wimp I am. Mary is right behind me. He turns to Mary, “It was nice meeting you. I am sorry about the circumstances.” He extends his arm to her, she looks at it and turns away. What do you expect, asshole. You fire her ass because she complains about her boss grabbing her ass, and you fucking get away with it. I make myself smile at him and turn away to talk to Mary.
“Mary, we can appeal. We can talk about what we can do next.”
“I don’t want to think about that now.” She starts to cry. “Thank you for representing me. You did a good job.” No, I didn’t. Don’t tell me that. I sucked. I failed you. “Thank you,” I respond. I want to get out of here. I need to leave.
I gather up the boxes and place them on the dolly. Mary starts to help. “That’s okay, I can get it.” Her mother opens the gate to come and help.
A look of pain flashes across her face. I feel horrible, now I’ve made her feel bad. I need to get out of here. “I’m leaving, Mary. I will call you next week.” I give her one of those patting embraces, the kind of hug you give when you feel uncomfortable. I can’t help it. I need to get out of here. As I exit the courthouse door, I feel as though I can finally breathe for the first time in a week. I inhale deeply and leave.
It wasn’t always like this. There was a time when I was enthusiastic, when I believed I could change the world. I thought I could make a difference, at least I deluded myself into thinking I was making a difference. I was a child of the Sixties, for crying out loud. Civil rights mattered, protesting the Vietnam War mattered. Nothing today seems to matter much. I need a drink.
CHAPTER 2
I drive back to the office. Thankfully, everyone has gone for the day. My desk is a mess, piled with unopened mail. There are piles of papers and files all over the glass table. It is overwhelming. I roll the boxes into the office and leave them inside the door. I turn out the lights and make my way over to the couch and collapse. Now I wish I could cry, just to get the emotional release, but no tears come. No relief. I need to divert my thoughts. I don’t want to obsess about the trial, nor about the unpaid bills. It’s too much. I don’t want to call anyone or talk to anyone. I don’t want to go home. I want to not exist. I lay here not knowing what to do. The panic begins to seep into my brain and then quickly sweeps all over my prone body. I bolt up. The panic will pass, I know it will pass. Please, let it pass. I don’t want to think about the rent, or the mortgage or the college bills. Right now, I need to escape. But, I don’t. I drive home.
I push the button inside my car to open the garage door, knowing that Ava, my dog, my little dog pound mutt, will hear the door lifting. Oh, to have the life of a dog, at least a modern day dog. I would gladly be neutered or spayed in exchange for a carefree existence with free food and shelter and people who care about me, but expect very little from me.
I have always been the one to take care of others, ever since my parents’ divorce when I was twelve. My brothers were younger and depended on me, and I didn’t let them down. As long as they needed me, I felt loved and important. Derek is now an architect in L.A., and I see him every year or so. He never married and lives the good life, sports cars, international vacations, a beautiful house. Not the same brother who, at age six, would grab my leg to prevent me from going out to play without him. Back then, I was his world. At least Eli lives closer. He is just one year younger than me and lives in Omaha. He and his wife Bev run a sporting goods store. I don’t think Bev likes me much. Bev, who openly declares she hates lawyers, always adding, “Except you, of course,” has not aged well. She is down-right frumpy and nasty. I personally think their store would do better if Bev would get off her fat ass and exercise and lost some weight. It’s poor marketing to have a sporting goods saleswoman looking like she spends half of her time in the kitchen or in front of a television. I think Eli gives in to her just to keep the peace. I am afraid that Eli is not very happy. Intellectually, I know that I am not responsible for his unhappiness, but I hesitate to admit I feel guilty about him, like if I had been a better sister/mother, he would be content. I really miss him Eli, especially our long talks as teenagers and young adults. Eli and I had all of the same teachers in school, I just had them first. We were both in the accelerated classes, but we were two very different students and even different children. Eli was shy and quiet and excelled in Math and Science. I was the loud-mouth poet. When we were kids, I tried to protect Eli from bullies, but I guess I didn’t protect him from a bully wife. I am afraid Eli chose Bev because she reminds him of me, and I really do not want to think about that.
I always do this, when I feel bad, I start to think about all of the bad things in my life. Sometimes, I just work myself up into a panicky dither over as little a disappointment as a gain of two pounds. Losing a trial warrants a much greater hysterical reaction than a mere weight gain. If I’m not careful, I could end on the edge of a cliff tonight, if only in my imagination.
As I open the door from the garage to the kitchen, there is Ava, wagging her auburn tail and running in circles because she is so happy to see me. I love Ava because she loves me unconditionally. It wouldn’t matter if I was a bag lady, Ava would love me just the same. I am glad that Hannah, my daughter, who is now 24 years old, begged me to adopt Ava eight years ago after Hannah volunteered at the animal shelter in her “I like animals better than people” period. Although, Anna is living in her own apartment and in graduate school, faithful Ava remains.
“Hi, baby!” I exclaim as Anna, wildly encircles me enraptured by my mere presence. I rub my hands all over her fur, “Here’s Mommy’s baby! Come here, baby! Mommy needs a hug,” and I grab the 65 pound dog and encircle her in my arms as she licks me with her long wet tongue. This feels good, although I know the feeling is fleeting.
“Joan, are you home?” my husband Steve calls out. I grunt. I know I should be nicer to him, but I am not in the mood to be “nice’ and here finally is a way for me to vent my frustration, although I don’t want to consider the long-term consequences of using Steve as a punching bag.
I walk into the kitchen, a large room that could be beautiful if I refinished the cabinets and replaced the cheap green flooring and out-dated counter tops. The room needs a complete scrub, but I don’t want to think about that.
“How is the trial going?” Steve calls from the family room where a noisy basketball game is blaring from the television. I hear the obnoxious “AAAAAAAH” sound the time clock makes and the cacophonous crowd cheering and my head begins to hurt.
“Can you please turn that crap down! I can’t even think.”
“What happened with the trial?”
I look at Steve and say, “We lost.”
“You lost?”
“What? Do you think I am lying? I said we lost.” Damn, I am such a bitch. Just like Bev. I walk to the bedroom, as Steve follows in his tee-shirt and jeans. At least he has a shirt on today. It drives our son Max crazy when Steve walks around the house shirtless, with the slightest beer belly coated in silver strands of hair hanging over his belt.
“I’m sorry to hear that.”
“I really don’t want to talk about the trial right now. I just need some time.” I lay down on the bed which Steve had made that morning. The room is blue because I was in my “blue” period twenty years ago when I decorated the bedroom. I like sage green now, but don’t have the energy nor the means to redecorate. Steve mumbles okay and walks out of the room as I slump on the bed.
Being alone was probably a bad idea. Laying on this bed, unprotected by distractions, is dangerous. My mind goes to the many improvements needed to the house. I need a maid, too. Well, we still have a healthy mortgage on the house because of all of the refinancing we have done to keep the firm afloat during the last 25 years. There is little equity, if any, in this house. That leads me to my real panic. The firm is having such a horrible year, with this loss and others, and, for the first time in a long time, we’re behind in our bills. I assumed the Gutierrez case would settle before trial, but I had not anticipated a stingy defendant and a stubborn client. Now she has nothing. She is not the only one with nothing. Forty percent of that settlement was supposed to be mine. If I keep thinking about this, I am going to induce a panic attack.
The phone in the bedroom rings, and I freeze. What if it’s another bill collector? What do I tell them? I am not going to answer. Let the credit card companies sue me. I imagine the embarrassment when my colleagues notice the lawsuits. Well, it could be worse, I tell myself. No one’s sick. My heart begins to pound and I feel jumpy. I grab the keys to my car and walk out of the bedroom.
Steve looks at me quizzically and says, “Where are YOU going?”
“I am tense and need to go out for awhile. Maybe I will find a movie.”
“Do you want to talk?”
After thirty-three years of marriage, I can find nothing to say. “No, I’ll be back in a couple of hours.” I leave, drive around and come home and go to bed. Chapter 3
(Go through 1970s and 1960s)
I remember when I was thirteen years old and everyday the major television stations, then all we had was network tv, reported campus riots protesting Vietnam. It was 1966 and I paid little attention to the news, especially since my mother had announced she was remarrying and I felt personal dread that seemed so much more important than what was going on in the world. It seemed logical to me that if these college kids did not agree with their college’s policies, they should just transfer. Life was pretty much black and white, good and evil. There were cowboys (good) and Indians (bad). John Wayne fought the bad guys in the movies, and he was one of us, one of the good guys, I did not have moral dilemmas, I was a kid. When Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, I was fifteen and had little conception at that time of the man’s importance nor of the upheaval of traditional white middle class life in the Midwest. On the day of Dr. King’s assassination, school was canceled and I hoped to be able to ride the bus downtown and go clothes shopping. Little did I understand that there were race riots and it was not safe to ride the bus. It was two years before it dawned on me that there were more important problems in the world than those of my family’s.
But when the realization came, it hit me hard. As I got closer to college age myself, I began to identify with the protestors, both against the Vietnam War and against racial bigotry and discrimination. I became aware of the world around me, even as my mother’s, and my, world at home was disintegrating. As my mother survived the beatings by my gentile, redneck stepfather and finally succeeded in extricating us from her marriage, I began to recognize real injustice in the world, both at home and abroad. I knew what it felt like not to fit in. In fact, my mother and my grandmother fled Nazi Germany to escape religious persecution, which would have ultimately led to their demise had they not left. My mother had not fit in in Germany, she did not fit in with the semi-affluent Jewish crowd in the Midwest of the United States, and she did not fit in the Bible Belt in Middle America. I did not fit in either. I was Jewish in a Christian land, my father gone, my mother being abused, and I was chubby, the kiss of death for society’s acceptance of an adolescent girl. The late 1960s and early 1970s was a good time for misfits, me among them.
Being a misfit is what led me to this job, always fighting, always the misfit, always in turmoil. No fat cat lawyer career for me, no sir. Beating the establishment in a case almost made me feel accepted, sort of. But living in a constant state of battle creates battle fatigue, even for those of us who have never handled a weapon more sophisticated than our tongues. Chapter 4
It’s been six months since I lost the Mary Gutierrez case. She and I decided not to appeal, because we would probably lose. At least that is what I told her. We probably would lose, but that used to not stop me. I had a really good record in the Court of Appeals until President Bush was elected and revamped our judicial system with his appointments. It’s almost impossible for a plaintiff to win an appeal in federal court now. I used to fight and win a lot more. I was the warrior for those courageous souls who fought against the big corporations or the bullies in power. Now, I am so afraid myself. I could have gone into a more lucrative area, but I have never been practical.
I am nervous about the appointment I have this afternoon. I am much more likely to take on a tough case if I meet with the prospective client in person. It is hard to reject someone with whom you have spent time. I think I am depressed, and that realization depresses me. It paralyzes me, really. I am not functioning well, but I still have a lot of responsibilities.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
A Side of Plaintiff's Lawyers About Which No One Talks
Lawyers get a bad rap, and oftentimes it is deserved. There are lawyers out there who have a hard time connecting with their clients. Their primary goal in practicing law is either to make money or to massage their egos, or more likely, to do both. I imagine that those are some of the lawyers who complain about how hard it is to be a lawyer and every other lawyer is a shark that wants to hunt you. What an unsatisfying way to make a living. And, in the end, if the goal is revering the almighty dollar, what a sad, shallow existence.
Perhaps part of my motivation in writing this is because I have not yet found the case with the Golden Goose. Perhaps my words come from a sense of envy. Maybe a little. Especially when we have had a dry period, defendants going out of business to avoid paying a judgment or declaring a bogus yet legal bankruptcy to avoid a trial date. Both issues have arisen this past year. Yet, I can say I love what I do and I have had a spectacular life. I feel much satisfaction in understanding and caring about my clients and in working hard for them. Sometimes I can actually see that my client is enriched by bravely going forward to help herself and others. That is satisfying.
I had lunch today with a lawyer I did not know. In our conversation, he told me about a case he pursued for a poor man who had been injured by a mammoth company. This lawyer loves his client and took 72 depositions pursuing the case. The judge ordered a master for depositions, since the case became contentious and the master's fee was $70,000, in addition to the other expenses. The lawyer hired 4 experts,to the 1 expert hired by the defendants. As trial approached, the lawyer and his wife mortgaged their house, maxed out their credit cards, sold their furniture and jewelry, to finance the case. If the trial did not go well, the lawyer
and his wife planned to file for bankruptcy one month after the trial, so that the defendants wouldn't know they had caused his financial demise. Fortunately, he never had to file for bankruptcy, but he and his wife were ready to make that sacrifice for the case.
If I needed a lawyer, I would want one like my lunch companion. When he talked about his client, he spoke with love. He, and obviously his wonderful wife, care. There is no greater satisfaction as a lawyer than making a positive difference in the lives of clients whom you have grown to love. I think I will go see if I can find some more jewelry to hock to keep afloat until I get paid. It is worth it to have a few cash-flow problems in exchange for being blessed by being able to love this wonderful work - representing courageous people who demand their civil rights. I may mot be rich, but I am living a glorious life.
Perhaps part of my motivation in writing this is because I have not yet found the case with the Golden Goose. Perhaps my words come from a sense of envy. Maybe a little. Especially when we have had a dry period, defendants going out of business to avoid paying a judgment or declaring a bogus yet legal bankruptcy to avoid a trial date. Both issues have arisen this past year. Yet, I can say I love what I do and I have had a spectacular life. I feel much satisfaction in understanding and caring about my clients and in working hard for them. Sometimes I can actually see that my client is enriched by bravely going forward to help herself and others. That is satisfying.
I had lunch today with a lawyer I did not know. In our conversation, he told me about a case he pursued for a poor man who had been injured by a mammoth company. This lawyer loves his client and took 72 depositions pursuing the case. The judge ordered a master for depositions, since the case became contentious and the master's fee was $70,000, in addition to the other expenses. The lawyer hired 4 experts,to the 1 expert hired by the defendants. As trial approached, the lawyer and his wife mortgaged their house, maxed out their credit cards, sold their furniture and jewelry, to finance the case. If the trial did not go well, the lawyer
and his wife planned to file for bankruptcy one month after the trial, so that the defendants wouldn't know they had caused his financial demise. Fortunately, he never had to file for bankruptcy, but he and his wife were ready to make that sacrifice for the case.
If I needed a lawyer, I would want one like my lunch companion. When he talked about his client, he spoke with love. He, and obviously his wonderful wife, care. There is no greater satisfaction as a lawyer than making a positive difference in the lives of clients whom you have grown to love. I think I will go see if I can find some more jewelry to hock to keep afloat until I get paid. It is worth it to have a few cash-flow problems in exchange for being blessed by being able to love this wonderful work - representing courageous people who demand their civil rights. I may mot be rich, but I am living a glorious life.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Courage in Politics: Doing the Right Thing Even If It Is Hard
This particular blog is intended for the legislators considering SB 188 and HB 205. I imagine that people don't run for public office unless they have a desire to seek the public good. It is inn the context of seeking the public good that I write this.
There is one very satisfying aspect of representing people in employment discrimination and whistle-blower cases, representing a person who has found his or her voice, a person who taps into the braver part of his or her personality. Many people have beefs about something at work, but it is only a select few who we represent. It is only a select few who have been wronged legally and have the fortitude to go forward. We represent people who have real cases for illegal discrimination and whistleblowing. The ones we choose to represent have courage because it is hard to buck the status quo, to complain to or about ones boss, to rock the boat. I have always appreciated how courageous our clients are because going forward in a case like this is not easy. Discrimination and whistleblower claims are special because people who display the fortitude to go forward oftentimes go forward because they don't want what happened to them to happen to someone else. Discrimination and whistleblower cases help society; they help each one of us. If it had not been for the courage of Rosa Parks, who knows where the Civil Rights movement would have gone. If Dr. King had not taken up for Mrs. Parks, this might be a different society. If someone had come forward to report Bernie Madoff, American society would have been better.
That leads me to SB 188, which limits the rights of people to go forward and bring cases of discrimination and whistleblowing. The opposition claims, "We aren't eliminating these cases, we are just making them conform to federal standards." However, that statement is not true. Many courageous people will not be heard if this law were passed. There are three parts of the bill which are troublesome - the elimination of individual liability, caps as low as $50,000, and passing a written whistleblower law that curtails the common law.
As an example of what this bill will do, I want to tell you about a couple of cases I have had. I represented two women at a small not-for-profit business who reported that their boss was stealing from the company and downloading pornography to his computer. This business had fewer than 6 employees and was run by a board of directors. The boss was using the company credit card to purchase Christmas gifts for his family, buy electronics, etc. One woman had been with the company for 26 years, the other for 18 years. Their terminations were emotionally devastating to both women, as they had put their hearts and souls into their work. The first complainer was fired, the second was forced out. The board of directors, all physicians, condoned the conduct and refused to take action except to authorize our clients terminations. We had to sue the executive director individually. The board of directors took no action against the executive director until after the second trial. Finally, years later, he was fired. By then, there was a judgment of $350,000 against the company and $200,000 against the executive director. It was not until the second case settled in the middle of trial for $500,000 that the board took any action. My old boss used to say, "People do the right thing if you make them." The case got publicity, membership in the association which was the company faltered. The company almost went under, but it did not. When the membership learned of what the board had condoned, they were upset. The problem was management and the board and what they had condoned. Because of the lawsuits, the problems were fixed. The executive director was fired, the board began to undertake their fiduciary duty and the company was saved. If their had been a $50,000 cap on compensatory damages, which is what the new bills provides, this case probably would not have seen the light of day. The litigation took years. There is no provision for attorneys fees. I fear our clients would have thrown in the towel. The company was made better because of the lawsuit.
Likewise, I have represented women and girls in sexual harassment cases. There are not near as many sexual harassment cases today because of the brave women who brought cases before and helped companies realize that sexual harassment training is essential. Now, sexual harassment occurs in fast food restaurants with young girls. They are young and naive. They could be anyone's daughter. Without the ability to name individual defendants, these companies fold and the owners open under a different entity's name. Women are traumatized by sexual assaults and with this bill, women and girls will have little recourse. The companies fold and open under a different name. The only way to get accountability is to keep the individuals in as defendants.
I know our jury system is not perfect, but it is the best system in the world. Missouri businesses are important, but not at the expense of our civil rights. Plus, I know of not one company that has decided to locate in another state because of Missouri discrimination laws. I am asking each of the Legislators, when deciding how to vote on these bills, to dig deep and vote your conscience. It is hard to buck the system, especially when there is pressure to vote one way. This issue is important. Please be proud of your vote.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
The Rise and Fall of a Mayor: An Illustration of the Importance of the MHRA
This is the story of how one woman brave enough to fight with Missouri discrimination laws on her side kept her boss a one term mayor. Ruth Bates filed a lawsuit for harassment, race discrimination and retaliation against her boss, the mayor of Kansas City, his wife and the city. Without her courage and without the teeth of the Missouri Human Rights Act, Mayor Funkhouser probably would have been reelected, since every first term mayor in Kansas City has been reelected for the past 90 years or so.
The federal discrimination statute, Title VII, did not get teeth until 1991, when Congress amended the law to allow for jury trials and provided that a jury could award compensatory and punitive damages. Missouri's human rights law got teeth in 2003, when the Missouri Supreme Court decided that Missouri employees had a constitutional right to a jury trial in discrimination cases. State ex rel Diehl v. O'Malley, 95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. 2003). Even though Title VII and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) prohibited unlawful discrimination in the 1960's, it was not until recent times that either of these statutes have had meat. Since 1991 sexual harassment has practically been eradicated in the workplace, employers have discrimination policies, equality in society has improved.
The MHRA provides that individuals can be sued and that punitive and compensatory damages are unlimited against employers, including government employers. These parts of the statute are currently under attack in the Missouri Legislature. This story shows the importance of enforcing the Missouri statute as it now stands.
Ruth Bates is a quiet, hard-working college-educated woman living in Kansas City, Missouri. Before the mayoral elections in 2007, she receives a phone call from Mark Funkhouser asking her to help him get elected as mayor. Ruth knows Funkhouser because he worked for the city with her husband and their children had been friends. She agrees and works hard on the campaign and asks for and receives a job in the Mayor's office. Unbeknownst to Ruth, when she hires in to work at the mayor's office, she is earning less than one half the salary of any of the male employees hired from the campaign to work in the office. She also discovers that the mayor's wife, who has the mouth of a sailor, is the de facto supervisor of the office. Ruth is African-American and the mayor's wife, on multiple occasions, calls Ruth, "Mammy," and makes crude sexual remarks. Ruth complains of the pay disparity to her actual supervisor, files an EEOC charge, and is ultimately fired from the Mayor's office and told she can be a clerk in the water department. Ruth files a lawsuit for retaliation and discrimination.
The problem with suing an elected official is that there is no one in the government who is the official's boss, except the voters. Generally, voters don't have access to what an elected official is really like and whether or not the elected official breaks discrimination laws. Without discrimination lawsuits, and an informed and active press, an employee who has suffered discrimination has little recourse against an elected official. In Ruth's lawsuit, we (I was her lawyer) sued not only the City of Kansas City, but also the mayor himself and his wife. Under the proposed amendments to the statute, neither the mayor nor his wife would be in any way personally liable for their actions.
Ruth's initial goal before filing a lawsuit was to get fair pay in light of the salaries of the men, and to get the sexual and racial comments to stop. Ruth did not want to work with the mayor's wife. There is a Missouri constitutional provision prohibiting nepotism. But, this illustrates the dilemma of having constitutional provisions or statutes which are not enforced. The city council passed a volunteer ordinance, which was declared unconstitutional. However, no one would raise the nepotism issue who had the ability to do so (e.g. prosecutor). Ruth asked for very little money, just for a raise and to have the mayor leave his wife at home. The mayor stated he would not leave his wife at home, so the case was not settled.
Ruth tried informally to talk to the mayor's wife to try to make the mayor's office a place she could work. The meeting became very contentious. It was clear to Ruth her only alternative for justice was to file a lawsuit. We asked the EEOC for a right to sue letter, which is required to file a lawsuit, and began to prepare the lawsuit in Missouri court. But, even before we can file the lawsuit, the mayor fires Ruth from the mayor's office.
I filed the lawsuit. This lawsuit was different than any other lawsuit I have ever filed. The Mayor had no boss and no one to tell him to comply with the law. He and his wife were angry to be a part of a lawsuit. The press got hold of the petition and published it in the paper. Almost every deposition was published by the Kansas City Star. The real bosses of the mayor, the voters, were being educated about what was going on in the mayor's office.
Ruth Bates was never one to seek attention or publicity. She shies away from the press. It is hard on a private person to have so much notoriety. It takes a great deal of courage to go forward and Ruth and I had no idea what Ruth was to encounter. The depositions are a matter of public record. In my opinion, the depositions did not go well for the mayor and his wife. I negotiated with the lawyer representing the mayor's wife, who had an insurance company that was paying for the defense, and settled with her for $45,000. She went on record stating how horrified she was with the insurance company because she claimed she had done nothing wrong.
The City is obligated under its charter to pay for its exposure and the exposure of the City. The City's lawyer approached me about settlement and we agreed on an additional $135,000. Ruth was satisfied, because she stood up for herself and others and wanted to get on with her life. All we needed was the approval of the City Council. Normally, this was an easy process. Not with this Mayor. The Mayor had so antagonized the City Council, that they would not approve the settlement because they were angry at what he was putting the City through. The City Council, in a three hour televised open council meeting told the mayor that if he was so adamant he and his wife had done nothing wrong, they wanted a trial. The Mayor repeatedly entreated the Council to agree to the settlement.
I was frustrated that it looked like Ruth was being used as a political pawn. The Mayor's individual lawyer, who was paid by City taxpayers, came to me and said that the Mayor could pay $35,000 out of his own budget and Ruth could receive a suitable job within the City and we could still proceed against the City. My frustration with the politics of the City was nothing to compare to what happened next.
As soon as the Mayor thought he was personally off the hook, he showed his true colors. The Mayor issued a vile and defamatory press release against Ruth, stating she had said horrendous things about the Mayor's opponent, that she had really wanted to borrow money from the mayor, etc. Ruth was crushed by this retaliation. The Mayor did not stop there, though. He then, along with his lawyer, called a press conference covered by all local news stations and the newspaper stating horrendously false things about Ruth. The Mayor's hubris and vengefulness was his downfall. Rather than having the effect the Mayor had hoped, the public, i.e., voters, rallied behind Ruth. There was no settlement with the Mayor, no job in City Hall for Ruth.
We prepared for trial. On the eve of trial, the Mayor finally produced items from his computer which we had been asking for for months. One item was particularly illuminating. The Mayor's wife had decided to write a book about their time in the Mayor's office. In that manuscript, which read like a diary, the Mayor's wife poured her hatred of Ruth and other employees in the Mayor's office. This manuscript was published in the Kansas City Star. In fact, the document gave rise to another lawsuit by another employee who was fired by the Mayor. That lawsuit was settled days before the primary.
Armed with the depositions, the documents, and the manuscripts, Ruth was ready to go to trial. The day before jury selection was to begin, the City Council approved an offer to Ruth of $550,000. This combined with the $45,000 received from the Mayor's wife, amounted to $595,000. Ruth Bates initially would have settled for less than $20,000, a pay increase, and for peace at work.
The Mayor and his wife have consistently declared they did not do anything wrong. In February 2011 the Mayor ran for reelection. He didn't survive the primary. For the last 80 or 90 years, Kansas Citians have always loved their mayors. Every mayor, until this recent election, was voted in for a second term. Not this mayor. The mayor's "bosses," the electorate, spoke. Still the Mayor and his wife believe they have not done anything wrong.Mayor interview 2/11 with Chris Hernandez
Why is this important now? The Missouri Legislature has bills before it, HB 205 and SB 188, which will cripple the MHRA. Even though civil rights laws have been on the books for over 50 years, they did not become effective until they got teeth. In 2003, the MHRA got teeth when the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that citizens had the right to jury trials under the statute. Now, the proposed amendments, want to do away with individual liability, take away punitive damages against governments, and limit damages for pain and suffering and punitive damages to anywhere between $50,000 to $300,000. If these amendments had been in effect, Ruth Bates would not have got justice. Perhaps, the voters would have reelected Mayor Funkhouser. The result would not have been good for the citizens of Kansas City.
The federal discrimination statute, Title VII, did not get teeth until 1991, when Congress amended the law to allow for jury trials and provided that a jury could award compensatory and punitive damages. Missouri's human rights law got teeth in 2003, when the Missouri Supreme Court decided that Missouri employees had a constitutional right to a jury trial in discrimination cases. State ex rel Diehl v. O'Malley, 95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. 2003). Even though Title VII and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) prohibited unlawful discrimination in the 1960's, it was not until recent times that either of these statutes have had meat. Since 1991 sexual harassment has practically been eradicated in the workplace, employers have discrimination policies, equality in society has improved.
The MHRA provides that individuals can be sued and that punitive and compensatory damages are unlimited against employers, including government employers. These parts of the statute are currently under attack in the Missouri Legislature. This story shows the importance of enforcing the Missouri statute as it now stands.
Ruth Bates is a quiet, hard-working college-educated woman living in Kansas City, Missouri. Before the mayoral elections in 2007, she receives a phone call from Mark Funkhouser asking her to help him get elected as mayor. Ruth knows Funkhouser because he worked for the city with her husband and their children had been friends. She agrees and works hard on the campaign and asks for and receives a job in the Mayor's office. Unbeknownst to Ruth, when she hires in to work at the mayor's office, she is earning less than one half the salary of any of the male employees hired from the campaign to work in the office. She also discovers that the mayor's wife, who has the mouth of a sailor, is the de facto supervisor of the office. Ruth is African-American and the mayor's wife, on multiple occasions, calls Ruth, "Mammy," and makes crude sexual remarks. Ruth complains of the pay disparity to her actual supervisor, files an EEOC charge, and is ultimately fired from the Mayor's office and told she can be a clerk in the water department. Ruth files a lawsuit for retaliation and discrimination.
The problem with suing an elected official is that there is no one in the government who is the official's boss, except the voters. Generally, voters don't have access to what an elected official is really like and whether or not the elected official breaks discrimination laws. Without discrimination lawsuits, and an informed and active press, an employee who has suffered discrimination has little recourse against an elected official. In Ruth's lawsuit, we (I was her lawyer) sued not only the City of Kansas City, but also the mayor himself and his wife. Under the proposed amendments to the statute, neither the mayor nor his wife would be in any way personally liable for their actions.
Ruth's initial goal before filing a lawsuit was to get fair pay in light of the salaries of the men, and to get the sexual and racial comments to stop. Ruth did not want to work with the mayor's wife. There is a Missouri constitutional provision prohibiting nepotism. But, this illustrates the dilemma of having constitutional provisions or statutes which are not enforced. The city council passed a volunteer ordinance, which was declared unconstitutional. However, no one would raise the nepotism issue who had the ability to do so (e.g. prosecutor). Ruth asked for very little money, just for a raise and to have the mayor leave his wife at home. The mayor stated he would not leave his wife at home, so the case was not settled.
Ruth tried informally to talk to the mayor's wife to try to make the mayor's office a place she could work. The meeting became very contentious. It was clear to Ruth her only alternative for justice was to file a lawsuit. We asked the EEOC for a right to sue letter, which is required to file a lawsuit, and began to prepare the lawsuit in Missouri court. But, even before we can file the lawsuit, the mayor fires Ruth from the mayor's office.
I filed the lawsuit. This lawsuit was different than any other lawsuit I have ever filed. The Mayor had no boss and no one to tell him to comply with the law. He and his wife were angry to be a part of a lawsuit. The press got hold of the petition and published it in the paper. Almost every deposition was published by the Kansas City Star. The real bosses of the mayor, the voters, were being educated about what was going on in the mayor's office.
Ruth Bates was never one to seek attention or publicity. She shies away from the press. It is hard on a private person to have so much notoriety. It takes a great deal of courage to go forward and Ruth and I had no idea what Ruth was to encounter. The depositions are a matter of public record. In my opinion, the depositions did not go well for the mayor and his wife. I negotiated with the lawyer representing the mayor's wife, who had an insurance company that was paying for the defense, and settled with her for $45,000. She went on record stating how horrified she was with the insurance company because she claimed she had done nothing wrong.
The City is obligated under its charter to pay for its exposure and the exposure of the City. The City's lawyer approached me about settlement and we agreed on an additional $135,000. Ruth was satisfied, because she stood up for herself and others and wanted to get on with her life. All we needed was the approval of the City Council. Normally, this was an easy process. Not with this Mayor. The Mayor had so antagonized the City Council, that they would not approve the settlement because they were angry at what he was putting the City through. The City Council, in a three hour televised open council meeting told the mayor that if he was so adamant he and his wife had done nothing wrong, they wanted a trial. The Mayor repeatedly entreated the Council to agree to the settlement.
I was frustrated that it looked like Ruth was being used as a political pawn. The Mayor's individual lawyer, who was paid by City taxpayers, came to me and said that the Mayor could pay $35,000 out of his own budget and Ruth could receive a suitable job within the City and we could still proceed against the City. My frustration with the politics of the City was nothing to compare to what happened next.
As soon as the Mayor thought he was personally off the hook, he showed his true colors. The Mayor issued a vile and defamatory press release against Ruth, stating she had said horrendous things about the Mayor's opponent, that she had really wanted to borrow money from the mayor, etc. Ruth was crushed by this retaliation. The Mayor did not stop there, though. He then, along with his lawyer, called a press conference covered by all local news stations and the newspaper stating horrendously false things about Ruth. The Mayor's hubris and vengefulness was his downfall. Rather than having the effect the Mayor had hoped, the public, i.e., voters, rallied behind Ruth. There was no settlement with the Mayor, no job in City Hall for Ruth.
We prepared for trial. On the eve of trial, the Mayor finally produced items from his computer which we had been asking for for months. One item was particularly illuminating. The Mayor's wife had decided to write a book about their time in the Mayor's office. In that manuscript, which read like a diary, the Mayor's wife poured her hatred of Ruth and other employees in the Mayor's office. This manuscript was published in the Kansas City Star. In fact, the document gave rise to another lawsuit by another employee who was fired by the Mayor. That lawsuit was settled days before the primary.
Armed with the depositions, the documents, and the manuscripts, Ruth was ready to go to trial. The day before jury selection was to begin, the City Council approved an offer to Ruth of $550,000. This combined with the $45,000 received from the Mayor's wife, amounted to $595,000. Ruth Bates initially would have settled for less than $20,000, a pay increase, and for peace at work.
The Mayor and his wife have consistently declared they did not do anything wrong. In February 2011 the Mayor ran for reelection. He didn't survive the primary. For the last 80 or 90 years, Kansas Citians have always loved their mayors. Every mayor, until this recent election, was voted in for a second term. Not this mayor. The mayor's "bosses," the electorate, spoke. Still the Mayor and his wife believe they have not done anything wrong.Mayor interview 2/11 with Chris Hernandez
Why is this important now? The Missouri Legislature has bills before it, HB 205 and SB 188, which will cripple the MHRA. Even though civil rights laws have been on the books for over 50 years, they did not become effective until they got teeth. In 2003, the MHRA got teeth when the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that citizens had the right to jury trials under the statute. Now, the proposed amendments, want to do away with individual liability, take away punitive damages against governments, and limit damages for pain and suffering and punitive damages to anywhere between $50,000 to $300,000. If these amendments had been in effect, Ruth Bates would not have got justice. Perhaps, the voters would have reelected Mayor Funkhouser. The result would not have been good for the citizens of Kansas City.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
New Job Opportunity - Puppy Mills.
List: nela_aff_kc Sent by: Bratcher, Lynne J Search
I posted this on my Show-Me Fairness blog;
You know the saying, "When God closes one door, he opens a window. The Missouri Senate passed the untenable discrimination bill today. I fear the time when racial slurs and epithets can fly freely in the workplace; where women and girls are sexual fodder for their older more powerful bosses; and when older workers suddenly are turned into Soylent Green, and there is nothing I can do to help. SB 188 passed the Senate today.
But, no worries! When someone gives me lemons, I will make lemonade. Fortunately, the Senate did not restrict its efforts to negate voter issues only to employment law. Even though the public voted just last election to eradicate puppy mills in Missouri, the much more intelligent and wiser members of the State Senate decided to unravel the voters' wishes. It looks like puppy mills are back!!!! I gotta find me some mangy old dogs to sell. This is a blessing in disguise. The puppies don't require much food, space or cleanliness - that's right- LOW OVERHEAD. And who says that not every cloud has a silver lining?
Anyone in need of a skinny, undernourished, dog with kennel cough and fleas? Low, low prices!!!
Reprinted from Sho-Me Fairness.
I posted this on my Show-Me Fairness blog;
You know the saying, "When God closes one door, he opens a window. The Missouri Senate passed the untenable discrimination bill today. I fear the time when racial slurs and epithets can fly freely in the workplace; where women and girls are sexual fodder for their older more powerful bosses; and when older workers suddenly are turned into Soylent Green, and there is nothing I can do to help. SB 188 passed the Senate today.
But, no worries! When someone gives me lemons, I will make lemonade. Fortunately, the Senate did not restrict its efforts to negate voter issues only to employment law. Even though the public voted just last election to eradicate puppy mills in Missouri, the much more intelligent and wiser members of the State Senate decided to unravel the voters' wishes. It looks like puppy mills are back!!!! I gotta find me some mangy old dogs to sell. This is a blessing in disguise. The puppies don't require much food, space or cleanliness - that's right- LOW OVERHEAD. And who says that not every cloud has a silver lining?
Anyone in need of a skinny, undernourished, dog with kennel cough and fleas? Low, low prices!!!
Reprinted from Sho-Me Fairness.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Missouri at a Crossroads: HB 205 and SB 188 - Do Legislators Really Want to Mess With a 50 Year Old Civil Rights Law?
Living in the state of Missouri has always made me proud. We're the "Show-Me State," home of Harry Truman, the man who integrated the military, among many other honorable decisions. Our discrimination laws have been fair, letting Missouri juries filled with Missouri citizens who have the Show-Me wisdom decide not only whether a worker has suffered from unlawful discrimination, but also what the monetary compensation should be to try to make that worker whole.
And Missouri juries get it right most of the time, using their innate intelligence and common sense. Plaintiffs lose something like 40% of the time. Punitive damages are awarded in rare cases only. Missouri judges follow a law that was passed almost 50 years ago during the Civil Rights movement. As the song from"Oklahoma" goes, "Everything's up to date in Kansas City ..." (and St. Louis, and Springfield, and Columbia and everywhere else in Missouri.)
Now, some in the Missouri legislature want to strip Missouri workers of some of this state's hard fought civil rights. The proposed changes do the following:
1. Throw Missouri citizens into federal courts because judges in the federal courts have consistently thrown cases out of court. By eliminating individual liability in the law, non-Missouri corporations, who benefit from the change, can force all lawsuits into federal courts headquartered in Kansas City or St. Louis, providing no local control for Missouri citizens.
2. Require caps on damages modeled after caps in federal courts that were set and have not been adjusted since 1991, some twenty years ago.
3. Gut workers' ability to bring necessary whistleblower cases by subjecting them to the caps and requiring unreasonable proof. This law is proposed and backed by one particular company because it's lawyers are upset that a verdict was rendered against the company some eight years ago.
It's hard to talk about these changes in the abstract, so I'll try to illustrate the impact these changes would have on one of my clients.
My client is a 17 year old girl who at age 16 went to work at a restaurant to help save money for her dream to attend art college. She did not know what danger she was walking into when she accepted the job. Her supervisor was a serial sexual molester. The owner of the restaurant knew that the supervisor had raped a girl who was previously employed, but kept the molester supervising young women. My client, young and naive, knew nothing of her supervisor's past problems. When he sexually molested my client, my client did not know what to do or to whom to turn. She did what most young girls do, nothing - because she was so afraid of losing her job and that she would be blamed as somehow enticing this pervert. Finally, when it got to be too much for her to bear, she told the owner's daughter, who said, "Oh, he's done this before." When the bosses found out, they told my client not to tell anyone. Ultimately, several months down the road, she did tell her parents. It was not until my client's parents found out that anything was really done.
My client's parents took their daughter to the police station and this supervisor ended up pleading guilty to a misdemeanor battery, with a suspended imposition of sentence. No registering as a sexual offender, no jail time, and his record is totally cleared as if he was never found guilty as long as he gets through his probation .
In the meantime, my client has suffered as a victims of sexual assault do. If this law passes, she will be limited in damages to $50,000 to repay her for the attacks because of the size of the company; she will not be able to sue the man who molested her for sexual harassment since he is an individual; and she may have the entire case thrown out of court because of peculiar twists in federal law.
Is this how Missouri really wants to treat it's citizens? I know businesses do not like to get sued. No one likes being sued. But, the citizens of Missouri have the intelligence and common sense to decide when someone has been done wrong. Our jury system is the underpinning of our democracy. In Missouri, we need not distrust our citizens to do the right thing.
And Missouri juries get it right most of the time, using their innate intelligence and common sense. Plaintiffs lose something like 40% of the time. Punitive damages are awarded in rare cases only. Missouri judges follow a law that was passed almost 50 years ago during the Civil Rights movement. As the song from"Oklahoma" goes, "Everything's up to date in Kansas City ..." (and St. Louis, and Springfield, and Columbia and everywhere else in Missouri.)
Now, some in the Missouri legislature want to strip Missouri workers of some of this state's hard fought civil rights. The proposed changes do the following:
1. Throw Missouri citizens into federal courts because judges in the federal courts have consistently thrown cases out of court. By eliminating individual liability in the law, non-Missouri corporations, who benefit from the change, can force all lawsuits into federal courts headquartered in Kansas City or St. Louis, providing no local control for Missouri citizens.
2. Require caps on damages modeled after caps in federal courts that were set and have not been adjusted since 1991, some twenty years ago.
3. Gut workers' ability to bring necessary whistleblower cases by subjecting them to the caps and requiring unreasonable proof. This law is proposed and backed by one particular company because it's lawyers are upset that a verdict was rendered against the company some eight years ago.
It's hard to talk about these changes in the abstract, so I'll try to illustrate the impact these changes would have on one of my clients.
My client is a 17 year old girl who at age 16 went to work at a restaurant to help save money for her dream to attend art college. She did not know what danger she was walking into when she accepted the job. Her supervisor was a serial sexual molester. The owner of the restaurant knew that the supervisor had raped a girl who was previously employed, but kept the molester supervising young women. My client, young and naive, knew nothing of her supervisor's past problems. When he sexually molested my client, my client did not know what to do or to whom to turn. She did what most young girls do, nothing - because she was so afraid of losing her job and that she would be blamed as somehow enticing this pervert. Finally, when it got to be too much for her to bear, she told the owner's daughter, who said, "Oh, he's done this before." When the bosses found out, they told my client not to tell anyone. Ultimately, several months down the road, she did tell her parents. It was not until my client's parents found out that anything was really done.
My client's parents took their daughter to the police station and this supervisor ended up pleading guilty to a misdemeanor battery, with a suspended imposition of sentence. No registering as a sexual offender, no jail time, and his record is totally cleared as if he was never found guilty as long as he gets through his probation .
In the meantime, my client has suffered as a victims of sexual assault do. If this law passes, she will be limited in damages to $50,000 to repay her for the attacks because of the size of the company; she will not be able to sue the man who molested her for sexual harassment since he is an individual; and she may have the entire case thrown out of court because of peculiar twists in federal law.
Is this how Missouri really wants to treat it's citizens? I know businesses do not like to get sued. No one likes being sued. But, the citizens of Missouri have the intelligence and common sense to decide when someone has been done wrong. Our jury system is the underpinning of our democracy. In Missouri, we need not distrust our citizens to do the right thing.
Monday, February 21, 2011
New Orleans - a city of contradictions
I am in the New Orleans airport waiting for my plane to take me home. I have been at a wonderful seminar on Psychodrama for Lawyers, put on by my friends Joane Garcia-Colson, Fredilyn Sison and Mary Peckham. It was an innovative and creative experience. However, I want to talk about what I saw in New Orleans while we were there.
This is the first time I have been back to New Orleans since Katrina. The French Quarter is filled with revelers, people celebrating and letting loose. Wherever you walk down Bourbon Street, music fills the air. I am imagine some people engage in behavior that they later regret, and sometimes hardly remember. In two candy stores, women bickered over who was next in line, making snide comments to other candy buyers. The streets are filled with people, some sober, some not, some pushing baby carriages.
However, on Sunday, Joane, Fredi, Mary and I have an experience that I will not soon forget. Joane wants beignets, so we wait while she stands in line with scores of others. After she gets the fried treats, we decide to walk along the Mississippi River toward our hotel. It is a little chilly, with the wind blowing. We are bombarded with smells, most of which are unpleasant. Homeless-looking men sit on benches, playing musical instruments with guitar and horn cases open at their feet for donations. The music is beautiful, but most people, including us, do not stop.
As we walk along the sidewalk, past a Holocaust memorial, a man, shabbily dressed, runs up to us, shouting, "Help! Help! Please give me a phone. She's having a seizure and I need to call 911!" People are ignoring him.
I look over to where he had run from and a short, squat African-American women is trying to leave the sidewalk, as she sways and stumbles and sits. Across from her is an older man, named Jesse, shabbily dressed with a long white beard and yellow mustache, drinking a large can of beer.
Joane immediately responds, "I'll call 911." She pulls out her phone and starts talking into the receiver, "We need an ambulance here at Riverside Park by the Holocaust Museum. No, the Holocaust Museum. Holocaust. H-O-L-O-C-A-U-S-T. By the aquarium. In Riverside Park. By the river. In the park. Near the aquarium. Holocaust museum. I don't know the address. . . In Riverside Park."
In the meantime, the man who accosted us goes back to the bench where his friend is. "Tell them her name is Marsha and she is 52 years old. She is having a seizure. She is not taking her Dilantin."
He grabs Marsha and holds her down on his lap. "Marsha, I am not letting you go. You need to go to the hospital. You are my best friend, Marsha. I am going to take care of you. I know what I am doing. I was in the 82nd Airborne. I am not letting you go. You are my best friend and I love you."
Marsha, an African-American woman dressed in jeans and a tee shirt, struggles to free herself. "I d-d-d-don't want to go to the hospital. They hurt me." She holds up her left arm, where there is a large bump. "Th- th-ey couldn't get the IV in."
The man holds Marsha securely. "Marsha, you have to go to the hospital. You made me promise that if you had a seizure that lasted three minutes, that I would get you to the hospital. This seizure was more than three minutes. You are my best friend and I am going to take you to the hospital."
Jesse chimes in, "Marsha, you need to go to the hospital."
A tourist couple tells us that they will go to the end of the street and flag down the ambulance. A man in a golf cart drives up, and looks at the the scene and tells the homeless people, "You all are going to have to leave."
We shout at the man, "She's having a seizure, she's sick. We called an ambulance."
The man in the golf car looks at us, obviously tourists, and it dawns on him this situation is different, "Oh, oh, okay. Is this the woman who's sick?"
We wait. I am afraid to leave because I am fear that the homeless woman will be blown off by the paramedics. Marsha is still struggling to free herself from her friend. When she talks, the right side of her mouth is drooping. The man, a white man in is 40s wearing a ball cap with a fleur de lis over his shaggy dishwater brown hair holds Marsha tight. I can't help but notice how blue his eyes are and how, under different circumstances, he might be a handsome man, this war veteran who lives in the park.
The paramedics arrive. To us untrained tourists, it doesn't look like Marsha is having a seizure, it looks like a stroke since the right side of her face is drooping. The man tells the paramedics that Marsha is not on her medication and Marsha struggles to free herself.
The man again Marsha, "I am not going to leave you. You are my best friend. I will make the paramedics take me with you."
Marsha relents and they strap her to the gurney as Marsha surrenders. The man follows close behind, holding his belongings in a green recyclable bag. "I won't leave you, Marsha." And they disappear into the ambulance.
I , and my friends, have been standing on the bench making sure that Marsha gets the attention in the park that she needs. Jesse remains seated, looking like a homeless Santa Claus and engages Joane in conversation. I turn around and see the sculpture of a Menorah behind us, to signify the Jews killed in the Holocaust. The scene is overwhelming and I begin to weep.
This is the first time I have been back to New Orleans since Katrina. The French Quarter is filled with revelers, people celebrating and letting loose. Wherever you walk down Bourbon Street, music fills the air. I am imagine some people engage in behavior that they later regret, and sometimes hardly remember. In two candy stores, women bickered over who was next in line, making snide comments to other candy buyers. The streets are filled with people, some sober, some not, some pushing baby carriages.
However, on Sunday, Joane, Fredi, Mary and I have an experience that I will not soon forget. Joane wants beignets, so we wait while she stands in line with scores of others. After she gets the fried treats, we decide to walk along the Mississippi River toward our hotel. It is a little chilly, with the wind blowing. We are bombarded with smells, most of which are unpleasant. Homeless-looking men sit on benches, playing musical instruments with guitar and horn cases open at their feet for donations. The music is beautiful, but most people, including us, do not stop.
As we walk along the sidewalk, past a Holocaust memorial, a man, shabbily dressed, runs up to us, shouting, "Help! Help! Please give me a phone. She's having a seizure and I need to call 911!" People are ignoring him.
I look over to where he had run from and a short, squat African-American women is trying to leave the sidewalk, as she sways and stumbles and sits. Across from her is an older man, named Jesse, shabbily dressed with a long white beard and yellow mustache, drinking a large can of beer.
Joane immediately responds, "I'll call 911." She pulls out her phone and starts talking into the receiver, "We need an ambulance here at Riverside Park by the Holocaust Museum. No, the Holocaust Museum. Holocaust. H-O-L-O-C-A-U-S-T. By the aquarium. In Riverside Park. By the river. In the park. Near the aquarium. Holocaust museum. I don't know the address. . . In Riverside Park."
In the meantime, the man who accosted us goes back to the bench where his friend is. "Tell them her name is Marsha and she is 52 years old. She is having a seizure. She is not taking her Dilantin."
He grabs Marsha and holds her down on his lap. "Marsha, I am not letting you go. You need to go to the hospital. You are my best friend, Marsha. I am going to take care of you. I know what I am doing. I was in the 82nd Airborne. I am not letting you go. You are my best friend and I love you."
Marsha, an African-American woman dressed in jeans and a tee shirt, struggles to free herself. "I d-d-d-don't want to go to the hospital. They hurt me." She holds up her left arm, where there is a large bump. "Th- th-ey couldn't get the IV in."
The man holds Marsha securely. "Marsha, you have to go to the hospital. You made me promise that if you had a seizure that lasted three minutes, that I would get you to the hospital. This seizure was more than three minutes. You are my best friend and I am going to take you to the hospital."
Jesse chimes in, "Marsha, you need to go to the hospital."
A tourist couple tells us that they will go to the end of the street and flag down the ambulance. A man in a golf cart drives up, and looks at the the scene and tells the homeless people, "You all are going to have to leave."
We shout at the man, "She's having a seizure, she's sick. We called an ambulance."
The man in the golf car looks at us, obviously tourists, and it dawns on him this situation is different, "Oh, oh, okay. Is this the woman who's sick?"
We wait. I am afraid to leave because I am fear that the homeless woman will be blown off by the paramedics. Marsha is still struggling to free herself from her friend. When she talks, the right side of her mouth is drooping. The man, a white man in is 40s wearing a ball cap with a fleur de lis over his shaggy dishwater brown hair holds Marsha tight. I can't help but notice how blue his eyes are and how, under different circumstances, he might be a handsome man, this war veteran who lives in the park.
The paramedics arrive. To us untrained tourists, it doesn't look like Marsha is having a seizure, it looks like a stroke since the right side of her face is drooping. The man tells the paramedics that Marsha is not on her medication and Marsha struggles to free herself.
The man again Marsha, "I am not going to leave you. You are my best friend. I will make the paramedics take me with you."
Marsha relents and they strap her to the gurney as Marsha surrenders. The man follows close behind, holding his belongings in a green recyclable bag. "I won't leave you, Marsha." And they disappear into the ambulance.
I , and my friends, have been standing on the bench making sure that Marsha gets the attention in the park that she needs. Jesse remains seated, looking like a homeless Santa Claus and engages Joane in conversation. I turn around and see the sculpture of a Menorah behind us, to signify the Jews killed in the Holocaust. The scene is overwhelming and I begin to weep.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
3 SISTERS!!!! and Psychodrama
I am so excited that I am going to be on the staff of the 3 Sisters seminar next week in New Orleans! The seminar is about the use of psychodrama as a trial lawyer. The 3 Sisters, Joane, Fredi and Mary are all certified psychodramatists. I am also a certified practitioner The guru/mentor of psychodrama, at least for me, John Nolte, will also be there.
I was first exposed to psychodrama in 1994 when I attended the Trial Lawyers College. That summer changed my life. I was in John Nolte's group at the Trial Lawyers College. I watched as a group of strangers had the courage to become vulnerable in front of each other. In psychodrama, instead of describing events of one's life, they are put into action. The method is extraordinarily powerful, as a tool for trial and prep, and as a way to discover oneself. My exposure to psychodrama, initially through the Trial Lawyers College, jump started me onto a path of self-discovery, both professionally and personally.
Through the years, as a lawyer, I began to take risks that broadened my horizons and helped me succeed for my clients. I left the firm I was working at and started my own, with my law school friend Marie. When a judge seemed to be biased against me or my client, I assertively confronted the judge and his attitude changed. I don't think I would have had the courage to do that before 1994. I became a much better trial lawyer. I got my personal life in order. I may have made these changes had it not been for psychodrama. Who knows? But one thing I am sure of, psychodrama was the impetus.
When the time came, after the 3 Sisters left the Trial Lawyers College, I eventually resigned from the TLC staff. I left mainly because I perceived unfair treatment of one of my friends. I also left, because I felt that I had become stagnant. I did not feel that I was growing creatively. I will forever be grateful for what I learned through the Trial Lawyers College, but it was time for me to leave. There are many people who are innovative and creative on the TLC staff. It is a very good program and I recommend it unhesitatingly to others. My friend Rafe Foreman, one of the greatest trial lawyers I have ever seen in action and a fabulous teacher, is moving to Kansas City to take over as a professor at my law school to make their trial advocacy program one of the best in the country. And, I bet he will do it, too.
Now back to 3 Sisters. The 3 Sisters are taking what they learned over the past decade and continually improving upon the past. These three women are three of the most innovative, brilliant and compassionate people I know. They wrote a book, Trial in Action, about psychodrama for trial lawyers. The book is superb. I am so excited because of the innovation of these women and the chance I am going to have next week to be a part of the magic. I can't wait. If you are interested in finding out more about the 3 Sisters, check out their website, the3sisters.org.
I was first exposed to psychodrama in 1994 when I attended the Trial Lawyers College. That summer changed my life. I was in John Nolte's group at the Trial Lawyers College. I watched as a group of strangers had the courage to become vulnerable in front of each other. In psychodrama, instead of describing events of one's life, they are put into action. The method is extraordinarily powerful, as a tool for trial and prep, and as a way to discover oneself. My exposure to psychodrama, initially through the Trial Lawyers College, jump started me onto a path of self-discovery, both professionally and personally.
Through the years, as a lawyer, I began to take risks that broadened my horizons and helped me succeed for my clients. I left the firm I was working at and started my own, with my law school friend Marie. When a judge seemed to be biased against me or my client, I assertively confronted the judge and his attitude changed. I don't think I would have had the courage to do that before 1994. I became a much better trial lawyer. I got my personal life in order. I may have made these changes had it not been for psychodrama. Who knows? But one thing I am sure of, psychodrama was the impetus.
When the time came, after the 3 Sisters left the Trial Lawyers College, I eventually resigned from the TLC staff. I left mainly because I perceived unfair treatment of one of my friends. I also left, because I felt that I had become stagnant. I did not feel that I was growing creatively. I will forever be grateful for what I learned through the Trial Lawyers College, but it was time for me to leave. There are many people who are innovative and creative on the TLC staff. It is a very good program and I recommend it unhesitatingly to others. My friend Rafe Foreman, one of the greatest trial lawyers I have ever seen in action and a fabulous teacher, is moving to Kansas City to take over as a professor at my law school to make their trial advocacy program one of the best in the country. And, I bet he will do it, too.
Now back to 3 Sisters. The 3 Sisters are taking what they learned over the past decade and continually improving upon the past. These three women are three of the most innovative, brilliant and compassionate people I know. They wrote a book, Trial in Action, about psychodrama for trial lawyers. The book is superb. I am so excited because of the innovation of these women and the chance I am going to have next week to be a part of the magic. I can't wait. If you are interested in finding out more about the 3 Sisters, check out their website, the3sisters.org.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
The Next Civil Rights Movement - GLBT (and it's about time)
I predict that within a few short years all over America we will finally protect gays, lesbians, bi-sexual and transgender people from discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and eventually marriage. And, it's about time.
When I was an adolescent, gays were called "queers" and they rarely were open about their sexual orientation. I had a cousin that evereyone whispered was "queer" and people giggled. In high school, tough guys (probably with concerns about their own sexuality) bragged about "rolling the "faggots" at Liberty Memorial. By then, the late 1960's and early 1970's, the civil rights movement had begun, but it did not apply to anyone in the GLBT community. Nope, they were still weird, still scary and deserving of ridicule.
I look back at that time and wonder, what caused everyone such fear? Was it that kernel of attraction, or maybe that boulder of attraction the bully felt towered someone of the same sex? Was it the fear of ostracism by family, friends, or religious zealots? Was it the uncomfortable feeling that flirting would not get you what you wanted, that you might be rejected by someone of the opposite sex? Fear, fear of something different and unfamiliar may have driven this homophobia.
Whatever it was, people of my generation and older treated gays and lesbians despicably. They, we, were afraid. We were taught by our parents to fear something so different, or maybe not so different, maybe sometimes intriguing. It was messed up.
Then something revolutionary happened. My generation had children. Many of our children were dumbstruck by the attitudes of their parents to the gay and lesbian community. GLBT people were courageous and came out. They loved themselves and demanded to be respected. And views of society as a whole began to shift and grow.
That is not to say that gays and lesbians are fully accepted and free from discriminatory treatment. It is legal in most states to discriminate against gays and lesbians in most states, including Missouri. In fact, the ways some people treat gays and lesbians is sometimes despicably demeaning and degrading and we need our discrimination laws to included our gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender brothers and sisters. It's long past time. I am tired of rejecting potential clients who are treated so abominably while waiting for the law to catch up with decency. On occasion, I have found creative interpretations of the law by using city ordinances to fashion a viable cause or action. We should not have to be creative to protect our brothers and sisters from injustice.
Please write your legislators, both state and federal, to put a stop to this despicable disparity. It's time to stand for justice. Gandhi once stated, "First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win.". It is time that we as a society make it unpopular to discriminate. We have been through the first three phases of Gandhi's paradigm. Now it's time ot win.
When I was an adolescent, gays were called "queers" and they rarely were open about their sexual orientation. I had a cousin that evereyone whispered was "queer" and people giggled. In high school, tough guys (probably with concerns about their own sexuality) bragged about "rolling the "faggots" at Liberty Memorial. By then, the late 1960's and early 1970's, the civil rights movement had begun, but it did not apply to anyone in the GLBT community. Nope, they were still weird, still scary and deserving of ridicule.
I look back at that time and wonder, what caused everyone such fear? Was it that kernel of attraction, or maybe that boulder of attraction the bully felt towered someone of the same sex? Was it the fear of ostracism by family, friends, or religious zealots? Was it the uncomfortable feeling that flirting would not get you what you wanted, that you might be rejected by someone of the opposite sex? Fear, fear of something different and unfamiliar may have driven this homophobia.
Whatever it was, people of my generation and older treated gays and lesbians despicably. They, we, were afraid. We were taught by our parents to fear something so different, or maybe not so different, maybe sometimes intriguing. It was messed up.
Then something revolutionary happened. My generation had children. Many of our children were dumbstruck by the attitudes of their parents to the gay and lesbian community. GLBT people were courageous and came out. They loved themselves and demanded to be respected. And views of society as a whole began to shift and grow.
That is not to say that gays and lesbians are fully accepted and free from discriminatory treatment. It is legal in most states to discriminate against gays and lesbians in most states, including Missouri. In fact, the ways some people treat gays and lesbians is sometimes despicably demeaning and degrading and we need our discrimination laws to included our gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender brothers and sisters. It's long past time. I am tired of rejecting potential clients who are treated so abominably while waiting for the law to catch up with decency. On occasion, I have found creative interpretations of the law by using city ordinances to fashion a viable cause or action. We should not have to be creative to protect our brothers and sisters from injustice.
Please write your legislators, both state and federal, to put a stop to this despicable disparity. It's time to stand for justice. Gandhi once stated, "First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win.". It is time that we as a society make it unpopular to discriminate. We have been through the first three phases of Gandhi's paradigm. Now it's time ot win.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Don't Let Legislatures and The Judiciary Strip Us of Our Constitutional Rights!
I am sick about hearing about tort "reform." even President Obama talks about the need for medical malpractice reform. What will really happen if lawsuits just went away? Will society be better off? Are lawyers and their greedy clients the problem?
Would there be seat belts in cars if no one had sued because a loved one was killed while ejected from a car and needlessly killed? Would some demented bosses be allowed to fondle and require their secretaries to give them sex if courageous women had not brought sexual harassment lawsuits? Would it just be considered "bad form" or rude if some white employees hang nooses from the ceiling in the break room to intimidate African Americans if fed up and outraged people of color had not had the courage to insist on their rights to be free from discrimination in court? I could recite hundreds, if not thousands of examples of positive social change as a result of lawsuits.
Should we let large corporations and insurance companies run roughshod over our legislatures, shower politicians with money and incentives so that they, the unliving "people" (or so the Supreme Court claims) can make their shareholders richer and more powerful while those with no money get poorer and poorer.
Is this country really just about money and power because we have a "capitalistic" society? I thought the Bill of Rights was supposed to mean something. Everyday, our judiciary and our Congress whittle away the Seventh Amendment rights of Americans, and no one even notices. The Seventh Amendment entitles Americans to jury trials. It is one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, seemingly as important as our First Amendment right to free speech and the constantly debated Second Amendment right to bear arms. But, no one talks about the Seventh Amendment. And while no one is paying attention, we are losing our Seventh Amendment rights through concealed arbitration agreements, judges granting summary judgment or remittitur, legislatures placing caps on damages. Big business does not trust American citizens to look out for their interest. Big business thinks people, if given the power as jurors will most likely to the right and fair thing. And big business does not want a fair, even playing field.
Those of you reading this, I implore you to contact your legislators, whether state or federal and find out their views on so called "tort reform"' which is a misnomer. What these people, under the influence of big business advocate is injustice and unfairness. We have a right to have disputes tried by a jury of our peers for a reason. The jury system is the most fair and just. Make sure you let your representatives know that it's not away for them to take away your rights, no matter how much money big business pays them in campaign contributions. It's time for us to step up and insist on our rights. They can't just tear our right to a jury from us, while no one is paying attention. You must do something.
Would there be seat belts in cars if no one had sued because a loved one was killed while ejected from a car and needlessly killed? Would some demented bosses be allowed to fondle and require their secretaries to give them sex if courageous women had not brought sexual harassment lawsuits? Would it just be considered "bad form" or rude if some white employees hang nooses from the ceiling in the break room to intimidate African Americans if fed up and outraged people of color had not had the courage to insist on their rights to be free from discrimination in court? I could recite hundreds, if not thousands of examples of positive social change as a result of lawsuits.
Should we let large corporations and insurance companies run roughshod over our legislatures, shower politicians with money and incentives so that they, the unliving "people" (or so the Supreme Court claims) can make their shareholders richer and more powerful while those with no money get poorer and poorer.
Is this country really just about money and power because we have a "capitalistic" society? I thought the Bill of Rights was supposed to mean something. Everyday, our judiciary and our Congress whittle away the Seventh Amendment rights of Americans, and no one even notices. The Seventh Amendment entitles Americans to jury trials. It is one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, seemingly as important as our First Amendment right to free speech and the constantly debated Second Amendment right to bear arms. But, no one talks about the Seventh Amendment. And while no one is paying attention, we are losing our Seventh Amendment rights through concealed arbitration agreements, judges granting summary judgment or remittitur, legislatures placing caps on damages. Big business does not trust American citizens to look out for their interest. Big business thinks people, if given the power as jurors will most likely to the right and fair thing. And big business does not want a fair, even playing field.
Those of you reading this, I implore you to contact your legislators, whether state or federal and find out their views on so called "tort reform"' which is a misnomer. What these people, under the influence of big business advocate is injustice and unfairness. We have a right to have disputes tried by a jury of our peers for a reason. The jury system is the most fair and just. Make sure you let your representatives know that it's not away for them to take away your rights, no matter how much money big business pays them in campaign contributions. It's time for us to step up and insist on our rights. They can't just tear our right to a jury from us, while no one is paying attention. You must do something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)