The March issue of Trial reports that a jury has awarded three men $175,000 in a lawsuit against the City of Portland where the plaintiffs alleged that police officers used excessive force.  See, Trial, 3/10, p. 14.  More specifically, the plaintiffs, each of whom is African American, contended that they were subjected to assault, battery, false arrest and excessive force motivated by racial stereotypes.  In this regard, the lawsuit charged that the plaintiffs were returning to their vehicle after a St. Patrick’s Day celebration when they were stopped by police officers as they got into their car in a parking garage.  One plaintiff, who had his seat belt on, immediately informed the officers that he was carrying a gun but had a concealed weapon permit. 

The police officers then allegedly started yelling at the men and drew their weapons, pointing them at the men’s heads as one officer sliced through the seat belt with a knife and the three men were pulled from the car and handcuffed.  The man with the concealed weapon permit was allegedly punched in the groin.  All three men feared they would be shot at any moment.  While the police officers argued in the case that they were just doing their jobs after receiving reports of a fight, the men were not arrested or given any explanation for why they had been stopped.

The jury award occurred in the case Hammick v. City of Portland, No. 0807-09735 (Or., Multnomah Co.Cir. Sept. 28, 2009).

Whether excessive force, assault, battery and false arrest by police occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, victims of police misconduct may make written complaints to the responsible law enforcement employer and contact an attorney to determine if a police excessive force lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential excessive force claim.

African-American News & Issues reporter Tuala Williams wrote recently that Pastor Kyev Tatum, president of the Fort Worth SCLC, is leading the charge amid cries of wrongful death in the matter of Michael Patrick Jacobs, Jr., 24.  See, Tuala, Williams, “Getting Away With Murder!” African-American News & Issues, Vol. 15, Issue 4, 2/24 - 3/2/10, p. 1.  According to the article, Jacobs, who suffered from bi-polar disorder, had stopped taking his medication because it was making him feel sick and began having difficulties inside his parents’ home, so his parents called 911 to request an ambulance.  Police, fire department officers and paramedics arrived, but the police decided to send the fire department and paramedics away, deciding to handle the call as a criminal issue.  As stated in the article, Jacobs continued to behave aggressively and was shot with a taser.  In all, he was reportedly tasered a total of 54 seconds in the presence of witnesses.  It was ruled a homicide by Dr. Nizam Peerwani of the Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s office, who, according to the article, wrote in his report that Jacobs’ died of “sudden death during neuromuscular incapacitation due to the application of a conducted energy device.”  Additionally, an electrical engineer with TASER International testified before a grand jury that the two jolts of 50,000 volts exceeded the limits of use set by the manufacturer since TASER International contends that the weapons are not to be discharged for more than 5 seconds.  While Dr. Peerwani called it a homicide, the grand jury and the internal affairs department of the Fort Worth Police Department did not see it that way.  For his own part, Pastor Tatum was quoted as saying that “In Fort Worth, you can kill a Black man and nobody’ll say anything about it.”  Tatum has asked the U.S. Attorney’s office to pursue a federal civil rights investigation against the police department and Jacobs’ family has filed a federal court excessive force lawsuit.

Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (DOJ) announced in a March 4, 2010 news release posted at http://www.justice.gov that two subsidiaries of American International Group, Inc. have agreed to pay a minimum of $6.1 million to resolve allegations that they engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African American borrowers.  Brought under the federal Fair Housing and Equal Credit Opportunity Acts, the complaint alleged that African American borrowers nationwide were charged higher fees on wholesale loans made by AIG Federal Savings Bank (FSB) and Wilmington Finance Inc. (WFI), an affiliated mortgage lending company.  According to the DOJ news release, AIG FSB and WFI contracted with mortgage brokers to obtain mortgage applications that were underwritten and funded by the defendants.  In this regard, the DOJ complaint alleged that AIG FSB and WFI failed to supervise or monitor brokers in setting broker fees and this practice had a disparate impact on African American borrowers, who were charged higher broker fees than white, non-Hispanic borrowers on thousands of such loans from July 2003 until May 2006, a period of time before the federal government obtained an ownership interest in American International Group, Inc.  As stated in the news release, AIG FSB and WFI are not currently in the business of wholesale home mortgage lending.

A copy of the complaint, as well as additional information about fair-lending enforcement by the DOJ, can be obtained at http://www.justice.gov/fairhousing .

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 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.

The U.S. Labor Department has settled a lawsuit in which two Texas companies were accused of not paying $1 million in overtime to 154 workers. Those workers inspected temporary housing trailers occupied by people who lost their homes during 2005’s Hurricane Katrina.

Federal labor officials announced Wednesday that Irving, Texas-based Fluor Enterprises Inc. agreed to pay the overtime as part of a consent judgment approved in a Houston federal court. The Labor Department also obtained a default judgment against Houston-based Universal Project Management Inc., a subcontractor used by Fluor. According to court documents, Fluor admitted no wrongdoing in the case, saying it wasn’t the workers’ employer.

Universal Project Management failed to answer the claims against it in court. An attorney for Universal was not listed in court records and no public listing for the company could be found.  Associated Press February 10, 2010.

In a News Release at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/February/10-crt-133.html , the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a federal grand jury in Trenton, New Jersey has charged a New Jersey man with threatening employees of five civil rights organizations that work to improve opportunities for and challenge discrimination against Latinos in the United States.  Attorneys with the DOJ claim in the February 8, 2010 news release that the gand jury’s 14-count indictment alleges that the man used the internet to repeatedly send threatening e-mail communications to employees of the LatinoJustice Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the National Council of La Raza; the League of United Latin American Citizens; and the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders.  According to the DOJ news release, the indictment further alleges that the man intended to place the victims in fear of bodily injury and that he acted because the victims were aiding and encouraging persons of Latino descent to participate without discrimination in activities provided by the federal and state governments.  Moreover, the indictment charges the man with five counts of transmitting threatening communications in interstate commerce and four counts of using a computer service to place a person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, commonly known as cyberstalking.  In this regard, the DOJ stated that an indictment is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. 

The civil rights cyberstalking case is being prosecuted by trial attorneys with the DOJ Civil Rights Division and an Assistant U. S. Attorney in the District of New Jersey.

In a January 21, 2010 posting at www.justice.org , the American Association for Justice (AAJ) reports that the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that police use of a Taser must be justified by a “strong government interest [that] compels the employment of such force.”  The lawsuit giving rise to the decision alleges that by shooting Carl Bryan with a Taser stun gun, a police officer, Brian McPherson, used excessive force in violation of Bryan’s Fourth Amendment rights.  The Ninth Circuit agreed with Bryan.  See, Bryan v. McPherson, 2009 WL 5064477 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2009).  In this regard, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that “This is the first case to set some clear limits on the use of Tasers.” 

As stated in the AAJ posting, a judge writing for the three judge panel stated that Tasers and similar devices “constitute an intermediate, significant level of force” that may be used only under limited circumstances that meet the “strong government interest” standard.  To determine whether McPherson used excessive force, the court applied the Supreme Court’s test in Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386 (1989)) and considered the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to flee.  Under the facts of this case, the court concluded that “the totality of the circumstances here did not justify the deployment of the Taser X26.” 

For his own part, McPherson relied upon an Eleventh Circuit decision holding that the police use of a Taser did not constitute excessive force.  See, Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2004).  But the Ninth Circuit said the Bryan case was clearly distinguishable from Draper, because the alleged victim being arrested in Draper  heard the police officer’s commands, refused to comply, and argued with the officer. 

According to a spokesperson for Amnesty International quoted in the posting, the decision should cause law enforcement agencies and individual officers to think more carefully about when and how to use these types of weapons.

United States Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers announced in a February 4, 2010 Press Release at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/February/10-crt-126.html that a settlement has been reached in the DOJ’s lawsuit against MasTec Advanced Technologies on behalf of a U. S. Army Reserve member.  According to the DOJ Press Release, DOJ lawyers alleged that the company willfully violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).  More specifically, the DOJ USERRA complaint charged that the plaintiff was called to active duty in the U. S. Army and notified his company supervisor of his upcoming military service.  As stated in the Press Release, his supervisor had previously informed him that the site manager position at the office would be vacant soon and offered him the position when it became available.  This offer was accepted but the position went to another person while the employee was engaged in military service.  The settlement in this USERRA lawsuit calls for the company to pay $5,760 in baclpay and interest.

United States Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers announced in a January 22, 2010 Press Release at http://www.justice.gov that a Louisiana man was convicted by a Shreveport, Louisiana jury in connection with a civil rights conspiracy, use of fire in commission of a federal felony, and obstruction of justice related to a cross burning near the home of an interracial couple in Athens, Louisiana.  According to the DOJ Press Release, trial evidence revealed that the man agreed with two cousins to build, erect, and burn a cross near the homes of a cousin and her African American boyfriend (now husband) and other relatives who approved of their interracial relationship.  As further stated in the Press Release, the cross was set on fire to intimidate the victims.  An Assistant Attorney General with the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division was quoted as saying: “The defendant and co-conspirators, driven by hatred, threatened a family with violence simply because they associated with persons of another race,” adding that “Incidents of this kind have no place in this country, but they are regrettably all too common.”