Lowering the Bar

UPDATE: Law Student Sues School; Says Low Grape Point Average Explained by Disability

A former law student at Southern Illinois University has sued the school and its dean after they refused to re-admit her for her second year based on what they said was poor performance.  Lisa Dawn Rittenhouse ended up with a 1.948 GPA, and a law school rule apparently provides that only those with a 1.95 or better will be invited back for another year.  Doesn't seem too unreasonable, on its face.

But Rittenhouse says that her low scores are due to disability, not a lack of ability.  She claims she suffers from bipolar disorder,  hyperactivity, ADHD, and dyslexia.  One or more of these disorders may or may not explain why Rittenhouse's complaint describes ADHD as "Attention Span Deficit Disorder" and says it contributed to her "low grape point average."  She alleges that she has one or more impairments that substantially limits here [sic] ability to perform" and that the school's failure to accommodate her was a violation of the "Americans for [sic] Disabilities Act."

Rittenhouse also claims a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, on the grounds that minority students with even lower grapes than hers were readmitted.

UPDATE: I recently came across a post at the very good blog Simple Justice which argued that it seemed unfair to make fun of Ms. Rittenhouse for typos in her complaint, given that she may have dyslexia.  That is a valid point, and I think I was lazy in doing the initial post.  I should have clarified two points:

• First, I wasn't and still am not sure that Rittenhouse's allegations actually even describe dyslexia -- could that make someone call ADHD "Attention Span Deficit Disorder"?  Not sure.  So I was suspicious of the underlying claim, not setting out to make fun of a disabled person, which I would not knowingly do.  But the post does read that way, which is my fault.
  
• Second, the post would have been more accurate and a lot funnier had I made clear that Rittenhouse was not representing herself.  (The corrected links below now go to articles that clarify that point.)

I haven't found any evidence that her attorney suffers from any disability that may hinder his ability to write in a way that will not embarrass his client, but if that turns out to be the case, I will run another correction.

Thanks to Scott at Simple Justice for bringing this to my attention.

Link: Madison County Record
Link: Law.com

Shark to Be Installed In Lawyer's Office

Specifically, a blacktip reef shark, which is one of two sharks that Christopher Gillette says will be living in the 1,000-gallon aquarium that was installed December 31 in his office in Bozeman, Montana.

The aquarium, which is eight feet long, four feet wide and four feet tall, will weigh about eight tons when it's full of water and sharks.  Gillette's office is on the second story, so the floor had to be specially reinforced to hold it and the four other fish tanks that Gillette plans to install.

Although Gillette said that the idea started out as a joke (apparently some compare lawyers to sharks -- first I've heard of that), he also said that the fish tanks will also play an important role in his family-law practice.  His clients are often dealing with stressful situations, so he "wanted to create an atmosphere where people would feel relaxed and be comfortable discussing very personal issues," he said.  "People seem to be comfortable with fish."

Sounds good to me.  What better way to relax than to be surrounded by sharks in a lawyer's office?

Link: CBS News

Consumer Advocate Successfully De-Taxes Toilet Paper in Pennsylvania

Not too many tax cases make the cut here, but this one seems important.  On November 29, 2007, Mary Bach struck a blow for all Pennsylvania consumers when a judge agreed with her that, in that state, toilet paper is not taxable.

Bach sued Kmart after the company collected sales tax from her -- twice! -- on the purchase of a 12-roll package of toilet paper.  The packages cost $3.99, so Bach was unlawfully charged a total of 56 cents.  At some point, however, she learned that unlike most paper goods, toilet paper is nontaxable in Pennsylvania.  (Most reports do not say how she learned this, but it was not too hard to discover that she is a fairly well-known consumer advocate who, for example, is currently the chair of an AARP consumer task force.  So it is her business to know such things.)

For future reference, other butt-related items that are not taxable if sold in Pennsylvania include disposable diapers, premoistened wipes, incontinence products, and (possibly, depending on how they are used) newspapers of general circulation and the Pennsylvania state flag.  Also exempt: food, water, coal, caskets, "wearing apparel" (except, strangely, for "clothing"), wrapping supplies if their use is incidental to a delivery, and the residential use of steam.

Pennsylvanians who get taxed on such necessities can now cite Bach v. Kmart as precedent.  She sued under the state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law -- a kind of law that is often misused (see prior coverage of $65-million-pants case), but as this case shows, sometimes is actually used primarily to benefit consumers.  Ms. Bach apparently did not bring the claim as a class action (which I am pretty sure the PA UTPCPL would allow), hoping to collect millions for herself or her organization based on a 56-cent overcharge.  As a result, she will collect $100 (the statutory penalty) plus court costs.

She also refused to accept an out-of-court settlement offered by Kmart just before the hearing, on the grounds that it would have required a confidentiality agreement.  No way, said Bach.  "I want consumers as they shop during the important holiday to be aware of what is and isn't taxable," she said afterwards.  "I would lose my ability to spread that message if I were gagged."

A Kmart spokesman said that the problem was being corrected.  "We don't want to fight with our customers," she said, although it appears that they did on this issue at least for a while.  "We apologize for the inconvenience and the problem is being corrected."

Kmart said it would not appeal.

Link: MSNBC.com

"Follow the Chicken"

Q:  Do you have a separate business that you have
     incorporated . . . or is this something you do
     just in your own name?

A.  Sir, I had a vision back when I was a child that
     nobody else in this world could recognize but myself.

     I know where Osama bin Laden is today.
     I know the cure for SARS today.  I know many, many
     things in this world that other people don't recognize
     and don't understand and don't know.

     Simply because I follow the chicken.

From a classic deposition transcript that I'm surprised to see I haven't posted yet.  To learn more about following the chicken, follow the link.

Link: Pittman v. Dykes Timber Co. (Simpson County, Miss., May 28, 2003) (transcript excerpt)

Trekkie Sues Auction House Claiming Trek Prop Is Fake

The Associated Press reported Friday that a Star Trek fan who paid $6,000 for what he believed to be a poker visor worn by the android "Data" on "Star Trek: The Next Generation" is now suing, claiming it is a fake.  Ted Moustakis of Towaco, New Jersey, filed suit in New York state court against Christie's auction house, demanding a refund for the visor as well as a table ($6,600) and uniform ($11,400) that he bought in the same auction.

Surprisingly, Moustakis is also demanding millions in punitive damages.

Moustakis claims that he brought the visor to a Star Trek convention in August to have it autographed by Brent Spiner, who played Data in the TV show.  Spiner allegedly then told Moustakis that the visor could not be the real thing because he (Spiner) had sold the real one years ago.  Moustakis said he felt "humiliated" after the android's revelation and that the pride he felt for getting such a "great piece of memorabilia" was dissipated.

Upon close examination, Moustakis said, the table and uniform did not seem authentic to him, either.

In a post reprinted on the excellent stupid-news blog SNAFU-ed, Wil Wheaton (who played "Wesley Crusher" on the show), said that Moustakis's story did not ring true in some ways based on his experience in the show (such as the fact that they did not have "one-of-a-kind" costumes as Moustakis apparently alleges).  In another post, "James Tiberius Kirk" comments that, if Moustakis has $24,000 to spend on Star Trek props, maybe he can afford to go ahead and move out of his mom's basement.

Link: International Herald Tribune
Link: SNAFU-ed