In a February 12, 2010 posting at http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/18657 , newsinferno.com reports that Health Canada has announced that NeXus I, II and III rollators are the subject of a voluntary recall initiated by Dana Douglas, Inc., a company located in Ontario.  According to the posting, the rollators are being recalled due to a variety of potential health and safety risks.  In this regard, newsinferno.com states that the company initiated the voluntary recall of certain rollators, which may break during use and could result in the user falling and suffering serious injury, including bruising, broken bones, or death.

In the Health Canada February 2, 2010 public communication concerning the rollator recall, Health Canada advises individuals to stop using affected rollators immediately and to return their rollator to an authorized dealer for necessary modifications.  In addition, Health Canada provides email contact information for the company as info@danadouglas.com for any questions about the recall.  For more info from Health Canada see http://hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/medeff/advisories-avis/public/_2010/nexus_pc-cp-eng.php

In its posting on the recall, newsinferno.com reports that there have been nine reported incidents in which the front wheel has fallen off the frame and twenty one reported incidents of the front wheel fork cracking or breaking, as well as five reported incidents of the brake jamming in the locked position during use.  It appears that no injuries have resulted from these incidents, to date.

Whether serious injury or death results from use of defective rollators or mobility aid devices such as a rollator, injured victims and their families may contact the appropriate consumer protection or health and safety agencies to report a rollator complaint.

In a press release at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/February/10-civ-136.html , attorneys with the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a Canadian weaver of ballistic fabrics and its American subsidiary have agreed to pay the United States $4 million to settle the United States’ lawsuit against the company for violations of the False Claims Act in connection with their role in the weaving of Zylon fabric used in the manufacture and sale of defective Zylon bullet proof vests.  According to the DOJ’s February 12, 2010 press release, the United States alleged in the lawsuit that the Zylon used in the ballistic fabric woven by the company for the body armor industry lost its ballistic capability quickly, especially when exposed to heat and humidity.  The United States further alleged that the company was aware of the defective nature of the Zylon by at least December 2001, but continued to sell Zylon for use in ballistic armor until August 2005, when the National Institute of Justice issued a report that Zylon degraded quickly in ballistic applications.  At that time, the DOJ reports that all American body armor manufacturers stopped using Zylon in body armor. 

An Assistant Attorney General quoted in the DOJ press release was quoted as saying ”Companies that knowingly sell the government defective bulletproof vests not only commit fraud, they put the lives of our law enforcement women and men at risk.”  As part of the lawsuit settlement, the company has pledged its cooperation in the Government’s on-going investigation of the body armor industry’s use of Zylon in body armor.  The United States previously has settled with six other alleged participants in the Zylon body armor industry for over $54 million, according to the press release.

The United States Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) offers an OSHA Fact Sheet at www.osha.gov about whistleblower protections and the environment, stating that an employee may file a complaint with OSHA if an employer retaliates against an employee with unfavorable personnel action because the employee reported a potential environmental violation.  According to the OSHA Fact Sheet, covered employees can include employees who report potential violations of certain environmental laws, including violations of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA); the Clean Air Act (CAA); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA); the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA); and, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  As OSHA states, if the employee’s employer is covered under one of these statutes, the employer may not discharge or in any other manner retaliate against the employee because the employee reported potential violations of environmental laws and regulations to the employer or the government.  Further, the employer may not discharge or in any manner retaliate against the employee because the employee filed, caused to be filed, participated in or assisted in a proceeding under one of these laws or regulations.

While OSHA states that these statutes do not expressly provide protection for an employee who refuses to work because of an alleged environmental violation by an employer, the Secretary of Labor interprets this statute to protect refusals to work when an employee has a reasonable belief that his or her working conditions are unsafe or unhealthful, and he or she does not receive an adequate explanation from a responsible official that the conditions are safe.

An employer may be found to have violated these statutes if the employee’s protected activity was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision to take an adverse or unfavorable personnel action against the employee.  Examples of unfavorable personnel actions provided by OSHA include firing, lay-off, blacklisting, demotion, overtime or promotion denials, reduction in pay or hours, and intimidation, among others. 

Complaint deadlines are described by OSHA, and, with respect to deadlines, depending on the statute, complaints must be filed within 30 days (CAA, CERCLA, FWPCA, SDWA, TSCA) or 90 days (AHERA) after the alleged unfavorable personnel action occurs (that is, when the employee becomes aware of the retaliatory action). 

An employee, or representative of an employee, who believes that he or she has been retaliated against in violation of these statute(s) may file a complaint with OSHA.  For example, environmental whistleblower employees suffering an adverse employment action in Beaumont, Dallas, Houston or elsewhere in Texas, may contact OSHA’s Dallas Regional Office at (972)850-4145 or an attorney to determine if a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential whistleblower retaliation claim.

In a June 30, 2009 article at http://seniorjournal.com , SeniorJournal.com reports that from 2001 to 2006, an average of 129 American seniors, those ages 65 and older, were treated in emergency departments each day - a total of more than 47,000 each year - for injuries from falls that involved walkers and canes, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study published in the June Jorunal of the American Geriatrics Society.  Fractures were reportedly the most common injuries for these falls among senior citizens, with one in three injuries requiring hospitalization.  According to the article, the study examined six years of emergency department medical records and found that, for older adults who had falls related to walkers or canes, most of the injuries involved walkers (87 percent).  People were seven times more likely to be injured with a walker as with a cane.  More than half of fall injuries with walkers and canes occurred at home, and, for men and women who used walkers or canes, the chances of sustaining a fall increased with age, with the highest injury rates among those ages 85 and older. 

The CDC study’s lead author commented in the article that walking aids are very important in helping older adults maintain mobility, but it’s important to make sure older adults use the mobility devices safely since falls can have very serious health consequences.  As stated in the article, the CDC study points out the importance of preventing falls related to walking aids.  Some prevention suggestions include encouraging professionals to spend more time with clients or patients fitting walking aids and educating people on how to use walkers and canes safely.  In addition, the article reports that more studies are needed to identify potential design problems and improve the design of walkers.

See, http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Aging/2009/20090630-InjuriesRelatedToWalking.htm

In a press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-22-10.cfm , a trial attorney with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) comments that racial harassment in the workplace will not be tolerated, adding “Discrimination is not a joke - it’s a violation of federal law.”  In this regard, the EEOC’s February 22, 2010 press release announces the filing of a racial harassment lawsuit in which  federal agency attorneys charge that a party rental company violated federal law by subjecting black employees to a racially hostile work environment.  According to the press release, the EEOC lawsuit alleges that a driver and warehouse employee, as well as other African American employees, were repeatedly subjected to unwelcome derogatory racial comments and slurs, including epithets such as the “N-word,” as well as racial jokes, by one of the company owners.  EEOC attorneys further assert in the case that complaints were made but the harassment continued. 

In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace racial harassment.  EEOC attorneys filed the hostile work environment lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of race.  EEOC attorneys filed the racial harassment lawsuit after the EEOC first attempted to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement. 

Whether an employer creates a racially hostile workplace in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, victims of employment related racial harassment may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a hostile work environment lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential employment discrimination claim.

The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  In a February 3, 2010 press release found on the internet at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-3-10c.cfm , EEOC attorneys announced two settlements against a hotel operator for $500,000 and signficant remedial relief in cases alleging national origin discrimination and sexual harassment.  Both lawsuits were filed in September 2007 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the first lawsuit, EEOC attorneys charged that non-Chinese banquet servers were rejected for hire based on their national origin when a San Gabriel Hilton severed its contract and hired Landwin Management, a hotel operator, to operate the establishment in April 2005.  The EEOC claimed that all the non-Chinese banquet servers who previously worked for the hotel at the time, many of whom were Latino, were not hired back during the turnover and were instead replaced with less qualified Chinese workers.

In the second lawsuit, EEOC attorneys charged that the Hotel subjected female employees to a sexually hostile work environment, including verbal sexual harassment by the housekeeping supervisor, who referred to the women as “whores” and “prostitutes” in addition to other offensive language.  The supervisor also allegedly reprimanded the female employees if they even spoke to men, and the operator failed to respond to the employees’ complaints of harassment.

An EEOC attorney involved in the employment discrimination lawsuit commented that “The days when employers make decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions shaped by the race or national origin of their employees should be far behind us.”  Further information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov .

Whether unlawful employment discrimination occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, employment discrimination victims may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if an employment discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential unlawful workplace discrimination claim.

A sexual assault lawsuit against the city of Brownwood, a Brownwood Police Chief and the Texas Trails Council of the Boy Scouts of America has been settled, according to a February 10, 2010 article posted at http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/feb/10/brownwood-settles-lawsuit .  In this regard, the Abilene Reporter-News states that the family of the sexual assault victim agreed to a settlement of $300,000.  In the lawsuit, the parents of the victim claimed that none of the entities did enough to protect their daughter, then a 15-year-old member of Police Explorers Post 1150, from a former Brownwood police sergeant who is now serving prison time for two counts of sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child.  According to the article, the settlement will be paid by the insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual and Texas Municipal League.

Whether police officer sexual assault occurs in Abilene, Brownwood, Houston or elsewhere, sexual misconduct victims may contact an attorney to determine if a sexual assault lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential civil rights injury claim.

The U. S. Department of Labor (DOL) at www.osha.gov provides information concerning it’s Whistleblower Protection Program.  According to a DOL Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) posting http://www.osha.gov/dep/oia/whistleblower/consumer-product-industry-employees.html , Section 219 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) established new retaliation protections for employees in the consumer product industry when enacted on August 14, 2008.  Under the CPSIA, a covered employer may not discharge or in any other manner retaliate against an employee because the employee provided, caused to be provided or is about to provide or cause to be provided to the employer, the federal government, or the attorney general of a state information the employee reasonably believes relates to any violation of, or any act or omission the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of the CPSA or any other Act enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or any order, rule, regulation, standard or ban under any such Acts.  Complaints must be filed within 180 days after the alleged unfavorable personnel action occurs (that is, when the employee becomes aware of the retaliatory action).  As stated in the information provided, unfavorable personnel actions may include firing, lay off, blacklisting, demotion, intimidation and disciplinary actions, among other things. 

Whether whistleblower retaliation against employees in the consumer product industry occurs in Dallas, Houston or elsewhere in Texas, whistleblower retaliation victims may contact OSHA’s Dallas Regional Office at 972-850-4145 and an attorney to determine if a retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential consumer product industry whistleblower claim.

The Morning Journal at http://www.morningjournal.com reported in a January 16, 2010 article that a police officer sexual misconduct lawsuit against the City of Lorain has settled for $175,000 in a Cleveland federal court, according to the victim’s attorney.  As stated in the article, a U. S. District judge ordered the sexual misconduct lawsuit to move forward in December, writing that because there were more than 10 cases involving sexual misconduct among the city’s police officers, a jury could determine the city has been “indifferent” toward sexual acts among residents and police officers.  The victim’s attorney reportedly said that the judge ordered the city to pay $75,000 out of the city coffers, and $100,000 will be paid by the city’s liability insurance.  A complaint was filed against the police officer in September, 2002 after the officer allegedly kept pulling the victim over and touched her inappropriately several times.  Afet that, a lawsuit was filed in 2005 with five complaints against the officer and three against the city, stating the city failed to properly supervise the officer, among other complaints.  In 2008, the police officer was found guilty on one count of menacing by stalking by the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas.  He served 60 days in jail and was placed on probation for two years and resigned from the police department. 

See, http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2010/01/16/news/mj2161293.prt for more detailed information.

In a Fact Sheet provided at http://www.osha.gov/dep/oia/whistleblower/index.html , the U. S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) states that truck drivers and other employees working for commercial motor carriers are protected from retaliation for reporting or engaging in activities related to certain commercial motor vehicle safety, health or security conditions.  On August 3, 2007, the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA) was amended by The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act to include new rights and remedies.  According to the OSHA Fact Sheet, the STAA protects private sector drivers and other employees of commercial motor vehicle carriers from retaliation for reporting certain activities.  If a trucking company is covered by the STAA, the trucking company employer may not discharge or in any other manner retaliate against an employee for filing a complaint or participating in a proceeding related to the violation of a commercial motor vehicle safety or security rule; cooperating with certain federal safety or security investigations; or providing information in an investigation by a federal, state, or local regulatory or law enforcement agency relating to any accident or incident resulting in injury or death or property damage related to commercial motor vehicle transportation.  As stated in the OSHA Fact Sheet, complaints must be filed within 180 days after the alleged unfavorable personnel action occurs.

Further information about OSHA is available at www.osha.gov . 

Whether trucking industry related whistleblower retaliation occurs in Beaumont, Dallas, Houston, or elsewhere in Texas, trucking company employee whistleblowers may contact OSHA’s Dallas Regional Office at (972)850-4145 and an attorney to determine whether a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential whistleblower claim.