According to an article from the Chicago Sun-Times, a small Chicago-based minority-owned promotional products and print company and its owner sued Cardinal Health Inc. of Ohio, accusing the health care products and services giantof breach of contract and racial discrimination.  See, Knowles, Francine, “Minority-Owned Company Alleges Health Care Firm Used Its Status To Obtain Contracts, ” Chicago Sun-Times, http://www.suntimes.com/business/1067463,CST-FIN-cardinal22WEB.article  , 7/22/08.  As reported in the article, the minority business discrimination lawsuit alleges alleges that Cardinal used the minority owned business status of the plaintiff to obtain multi-billion dollar government contracts and then breached its contract.  Id.  According to a statement quoted in the article from the owner of the minority business, Cardinal “dropped us like a hot potato, misleading both us and the federal government about their commitment to minority-owned businesses.”  Id. Whether discrimination against a minority owned business occurs in Houston or elsewhere, minority owned businesses have rights and can consult an attorney to determine whether a discrimination lawsuit or breach of contract lawsuit is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case.

According to The New York Times, “[a] world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007 but for years did not report much of this income to university officials.”  See, Harris, Gardiner and Benedict Carey, “Researchers Fail to Reveal Full Drug Pay,” The New York Times, 6/8/08, p. A1.  The article states that by failing to report the income, the psychiatrist and a colleague in the Psychiatry Department at Harvard Medical School, may have violated federal and university research rules which are allegedly designed to police potential conflicts of interest.  Id.  In addition, another researcher, after being pressed by investigators, reported earning about $1 million.  Id.  As reported in the article, the Harvard Group’s “consulting arrangements with drug makers were already controversial because of the researchers advocacy of unapproved uses of psychiatric medicines in children.”  Id.  Senator Charles Grassley has pushed the three experts at Harvard to expose their income from consulting fees, and a Harvard spokeswoman reportedly stated that the doctors have been referred to a university conflict committee for review.  Id.  While universities ask professors to report their conflicts, universities do “almost nothing to verify the accuracy of these voluntary disclosures.”  Id.  According to the article, lawmakers have been “concerned in recent years about the use of unapproved medications in children and the influence of industry money.”  Id. 

A research report released by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) has, according to Hispanic Network Magazine, revealed that while many organizations believe workplace diversity is important only 30% have an official definition of it.  See, “Challenges In Unlocking the Strengths of Diversity,” Hispanic Network Magazine, Vol 20 Issue 2, 2008, p. 33.  A survery that was part of the project asked more than 1,400 Human Resource professionals and diversity practitioners to gauge the extent to which diversity practices accomplish specific business objectives, and, in this regard, the article reported that 52% said that to a “large extent” diversity practices created a work environment which allowed everyone to contribute all that they can to an organization.  Id.  Other notable findings included a reference to small companies - 99 or fewer employees - as being the least likely to have an official definition of diversity.  Id.  In addition, public/government organizations are more likely than private for-profit and non-profit organizations to define diversity.  Id.  Frank McCloskey, the Vice President of Diversity at Georgia Power, was quoted as saying that “[t]here is a lack of discipline and understanding of what diversity means beyond race and gender or how success is being defined, or not being defined, by most corporate diversity and inclusion initiatives.”  Id.  Further, some 75% of the Human Resource professionals said that they would like to see greater emphasis made on the positive relationship between diversity and business results.  Id.  For more information visit: http://www.shrm.org/surveys .

The Houston Chronicle Editorial Section stated on June 1st that in throwing out a $26.1 million jury verdict, a Houston Appellate Court usurped the role of the trial judge and trial jury and risks emboldening the company to rely on judicial friends in high places to overrule juries and send widows home empty-handed.  See, Editorial, “Big Pharma’s Buddies,” Houston Chronicle, 6/1/08, p. E2. Carol Ernst, whose 59-year-old husband, Bob Ernst, allegedly died as a result of taking Vioxx was awarded a $253 million verdict against the manufacturer of Vioxx in 2005 and then the judge reduced that award to $26.1 million in accordance with Tort Reform laws passed by the Texas legislature.  Id.  On appeal, a three judge panel of a Houston Court of Appeals took everything away, saying that the expert testimony provided at trial did not prove that the drug caused the death even though the studies showing a link between the drug and heart attacks were valid.  Id.   Bob Ernst had heart problems.  Id.  The attorney for Ms. Ernst stated that “activist judges are protecting corporate executives and stripping away the rights of widows and every other victim of corporate misconduct.”  Id.  According to the editorial, the decision was handed down by “a group of judges who regularly accept campaign contributions from law firms representing corporations that appear in their courts.”  Id. 

Owing to rules that have been written or rewritten by the Bush Administration, companies are using a legal defense in product lawsuits called the “doctrine of preemption” to have cases dismissed .  See, Editorial, “Working Against Consumers,” Las Vegas Sun, http://www.lasvegassun.com , 5/18/08.  According to the editorial, the Associated Press reports that since 2005 preemption language has been added to rules governing “just about everything Americans use.”  Id.  Dennis Quaid testified before Congress on the issue because he has a product liability lawsuit pending against a drug manufacturer of the drug given to his children in the wrong dosage and the drug maker is saying it has immunity from liability.  Id.  According to Quaid, the right to sue pharmaceutical companies should not be taken away since it would turn consumers into “uninformed and uncompensated lab rats.”  Id.

According to Joseph Nixon, an architect of Tort Reform in Texas, “[O]ver the past three years, some 7,000 M.D.s have flooded into Texas, many from Tennessee.”  See, Nixon, Joseph, “Why Doctors Are Heading to Texas,” The Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com , 5/17/08.  As Nixon writes, the reason is “Tort reform.”  Id.  The results of reforms enacted in Texas in 2003 and 2005 have, in Nixon’s judgment, been a stunning success, driving down insurance rates, capping medical malpractice awards for noneconomic damages at $250,000.00, requiring medical experts to file reports supporting a lawsuit, and increasing the burden of proof in emergency room care cases.  Id.  The article states that one hospital system has saved $100 million thanks to tort reform.  Id.  Mr. Nixon goes on to assert that “large settlements and runaway malpractice suits” were paid for by consumers through increased price of goods, by pensioners through diminished stock prices and by workers through lost jobs, claiming further that the uninsured were hit the hardest by “frivolous lawsuits.”  Id.   According to the article, “Texas recently became home to more Fortune 500 companies than New York and California,” and the Texas State Medical Board had a backlog of 3,000 applications.  Id.

Professor Erwin Chemerinsky wrote recently about what he described as a troubling trend in preemption rulings by the United States Supreme Court.  See, Chemerinsky, Erwin, “A Troubling Trend in Preemption Rulings,” Trial, May, 2008, pp. 62 - 64.  In the article found in Trial magazine, the Duke University professor discussed three decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 20, 2008 that addressed the question of when federal law trumps state law.  Id. @ p. 62.  All three decisions found that the state law claims involved were preempted.  Id.  Another case called Wyeth v. Levine is still pending and in that case the Court will consider whether a patient who was injured by off-label use of a drug can recover from the manufacturer even though the FDA approved the label.  Id.  As Professor Chemerinsky wrote, one would expect a conservative court committed to protecting states’ rights would narrow (rather than expand) the scope of federal preemption, “[b]ut there is every indication that the Roberts Court, although unquestionably conservative, will intrepret preemption doctrines broadly when businesses challenge state and local laws.”  Id.  According to the article, this Court appears to be “very willing to let federal law trump state law when business interests are at stake.”  Id.  In this regard, while there is supposed to be a presumption against preemption, the recent cases “clearly put the presumption in favor of preemption” even when the federal law in question is silent about preemption and there is no conflict between federal and state law.  Id. @ pp. 62 - 63.  Interestingly, the Supreme Court Justices most committed to using federalism to limit federal power were often in the majority on these decisions.  Id. @ p. 63.  As further stated in the piece, “[s]ome commentators have said the Roberts Court may be the most pro-business Court since the mid-1930s.”  Id. @ p. 64. 

An Associated Press article entitled “Bush Administration Rules Limit Lawsuits” was released May 13, 2008.  Written by Pete Yost, the article addresses limits on lawsuits created by the Bush Administration in order to make it more difficult for consumers to sue businesses over faulty products.  See, http://www.magnetmail.net/actions .  According to the article, the Bush Administration is rewriting the “bureaucratic rulebook” and since 2005 lawsuit limits have been included in 51 proposed or adopted rules governing just about everything Americans use, including, for example, drugs, cars, railroads, medical devices and even food.  Id.  President Bush has campaigned for lawsuit reform since his days as Texas governor.  Id.  The article states: “Decried by consumer advocates and embraced by industry, the agencies’ use of the government’s rule-making authority represents the administration’s final act in a long-standing drive to shield companies from lawsuits.”  Id.   It’s called preemption, a legal idea that is difficult to build widespread public interest in, and it is used to get lawsuits thrown out of courts regardless of merit.  The American Association of Justice’s CEO, Jon Haber, was quoted as saying that the federal agencies are engaging in “a brazen end run around Congress, the Constitution and the states in an effort to let negligent corporations off the hook and knowingly put consumers at risk.”  Id. The head of the consumer advocacy group, Public Citizen,was quoted as saying, “What the companies want is complete immunity and the regulators in the Bush Administration are helping them.”  Id.  However, industry is prevailing.

KHOU Television ran a story on May 13, 2008 called “Justice For Sale In Texas?”  See, Greenblatt, Mark, “Justice For Sale in Texas?,” 11 News Defenders, http://www.khou.com , 5/13/08.  According to the report, Jose Herrera was a contract laborer at CITGO Refinery when 475 degree petroleum spilled over his body as he struggled to free himself from a jammed safety harness.  Id.  Mr. Herrera does not know what is going to happen to his family who cannot hug him since he hurts all over his body.  Id.  However, the Texas Supreme Court in the case Entergy v. Summers has, according to the 11 News Defender report, ruled that “if Texas companies bought a certain type of worker’s compensation insurance, they were protected from contract worker lawsuits stemming from injury.”  Id.   Two of the largest donations ever made to Justice Don Willett, the author of the Court’s decision, came from the political action committee for Texans for Lawsuit Reform.  Id.  When asked what he thought about losing his right to sue, Mr. Herrera responded that it was not right because “They (treat) us like a piece of tool.  We are not a tool.  We are human beings.” Id.  BP, the Texas Oil and Gas PAC and others with an interest in this latest ruling from the Texas Supreme Court gave, according to the report, nearly $750,000 to the justices in the six years leading up to the decision.  Id.  State Representative Craig Eiland was quoted as saying, “They are making the law.”  Id.  The Supreme Court has agreed to rehear the decision.  Id.

According to an article in the Dallas Morning News, Houston homebuilder Bob Perry has given millions of dollars to state and federal candidates and he and members of his family have, either directly or indirectly, contributed more than $260,000.00 to all nine members of the Texas Supreme Court.  See, Slater, Wayne, “Texas Supreme Court Rules Against Mansfield Couple in Battle with Homebuilder,” The Dallas Morning News,  http://www.dallasnews.com , 5/3/08.  On Friday, May 2nd, the newspaper reported that the Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bob Perry, the state’s most prolific campaign contributor, in a case homeowner advocates say “reflects the influence of big money over elected judges.”  Id.  Explaining further, the article said that the Texas Supreme Court overturned an $800,000 award to Bob and Jane Cull, a retirement age couple from Mansfield who have been in a legal fight with Houston-based Perry Homes since 2000.  Id.  Mrs. Cull was quoted in the article as follows: “All we ever wanted was a home with a good foundation, built properly, that could serve as our retirement home … The little guy just can’t win, and that’s what’s so devastating about it.”  Id.  Alex Winslow of Texas Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog group, reportedly stated that the ruling reflects the high court’s record of favoring business.  Id.