U of M Professor of Sport Sociology and Director at the Tucker Center Mary Jo Kane spoke at the Feb/2012 Federal Bar Association luncheon on the overwhelming challenges faced by university athletic directors as a result of Title IX‘s mandate of “proportionality” between spending on men and women athletic programs.  Prof. Kane spoke on this, the 40th year since the passage of Title IX.

A new women’s sports program costs $800,000, Prof. Kane said, which athletic directors do not have in their budgets.  Some directors, therefore, faced with the challenge to make their mens’ and womens’ programs “proportional,” will axe a mens’ sports program (for a corresponding savings of $800,000) (and blame Title IX).

Prof. Kane, however, homes in on the 900 lbs. gorilla, so to speak, FOOTBALL, for her solution to the challenge of Title IX.  She takes the position that collegiate football programs are both the problem AND the solution.   Continue reading →

Update (February 22, 2012):  As described in the original Minnesota Litigator post below, Seagate lost a jury trial before U.S. District Court Judge Donovan W. Frank (D. Minn.).  Seagate, represented by Aaron Van Oort of Faegre Baker Daniels, argued the appeal of that jury verdict at the 8th Circuit  last week (Judges William Jay Riley, Roger L. Wollman, Lavenski R. Smith).

Seagate should only be liable, Van Oort argued, if it knew it was lying to plaintiff Vaidyanathan, not if it merely recklessly induced the man to take a job that Seagate did not have to offer.  The jury instructions at trial, Van Oort argued, likely led the jury to find Seagate liable without a finding of “knowing falsity.”  (Seagate argued two other grounds, as well (sufficiency of evidence of “kind or character of the work” under a Minnesota employment statute (Minn. Stat. §181.64), and the measure of damages)).  (Craig Brandt argued on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. Vaidyanathan.)

Minnesota Litigator will predict affirmance, given the deference appeals courts understandably tend to give jury trial verdicts (it is an awfully expensive process in every sense), the nature of Seagate’s challenges to the rulings by the district court, and the underlying found facts of the case.  But time will tell.

Continue reading →

The Minnesota State Bar Association’s man in St. Paul, Bryan Lake, reports that “House Civil Law Committee laid over HF1865, The Minnesota Ski Safety Act, which sets forth duties and responsibilities for skiers and ski area operators, and limits the liability of ski area operators.”

As with a great deal of legislation, it is so misleadingly named that one can better understand the true meaning and import of the proposed legislation if one flips the language to say the opposite.  Here, for example, consider thinking of this as the Minnesota Ski Danger Act.   Continue reading →

In a few years, apparently, computers will read our minds.  We will command them with our thoughts.  The only problem with that is that some among us would prefer that computers be smarter than us, not just as smart.

Amazon, Google, Apple, and many other cutting edge high-tech companies have already thought of that.  They boast that their devices can “learn” about you, about your preferences, and you will not have to command the devices to do your bidding, they’ll just know.

But how do they know? And who taught them to learn? Continue reading →

Update (February 16, 2012):  In the post below from last Spring, Minnesota Litigator highlighted Sr. U.S. District Court Judge Richard H. Kyle‘s signature efficiency, cutting off “cross reply briefs” and saving the litigants about $5,000 in legal argument overkill.  The dollar amount was an “educated guess.”  In the same case (won by the plaintiff on summary judgment last May), Judge Kyle has, again, this week shaved off some expense to the clients by cancelling oral argument on plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees.  

In the briefing for this more recent motion, the pretty simple motion apparently cost more than $15,000 for one side in attorneys’ fees.  Maybe Minnesota Litigator underestimated the savings back in April by cancellation of the reply briefs.   Continue reading →

Every book is a triple story, the story in the book itself, the story of reading of the book, the story of writing the book.  All litigation is the overlay of stories — the litigation itself — atop of other stories — the underlying and conflicting versions or understandings of reality that precipitated the lawsuit in the first place.

As there is an inevitable overlap in starring roles, in many cases, there is often an echo effect as the litigation seems to embody the dysfunction that caused the dispute in the first place.  This is probably most obvious in litigation in the family law context and least obvious in cases with institutional professional litigants like large companies.   Continue reading →

Generally, the focus in civil litigation of the public, of clients, and even of litigators is on “winning” or “losing” lawsuits.  This is understandable.  The drama of the culminating moment of the jury verdict is far too riveting not to be a focal point of the litigation process in the popular imagination.

But in a lot more civil litigation than is widely appreciated, the entry of judgment (whether on a jury verdict or otherwise) is rarely the conclusive climax it might seem to be.  Instead, it is one of many mile-posts of a punishingly long and arduous campaign, the ultimate goal of which is, of course, to shift money from one side to the other.  (In this pending case, between creditor and ultimate payment there now stands a bankruptcy and prison time of the alleged debtors.  How deep to dig for oil before concluding the hole is dry?)

Along the way, the lawyer-mercenaries are amassing their own accounts-receivables, of course.  When the combatants are finally at the end of the road, erstwhile allies may be enemies, creditors may be debtors, vice-versa, and the reckoning can be complicated.   Continue reading →

It was only a matter of time until some entity started pointing a finger at Fredrikson & Byron, the law firm that did a considerable amount of the legitimate work for Petters’ legitimate entities back in the day.  The questions plaintiff will focus on, of course, are what did the law firm know about the illegitimate Ponzi scheme and when did it know it?  The fact that this matter has been in the public eye since late 2008 and, so far, none of the many investigations (civil and criminal, state and federal) have implicated F&B suggest that plaintiff may be facing an uphill battle (which will nevertheless be costly for F&B to defend).  (Local press coverage here, here, here (in chron order of stories)).

As the previous calendar year recedes in our rear view mirrors, law firms close the books for the past year, they distribute the bonuses, and they divvy up the partner profits…prime time for a flurry of activity in the legal labor market.

There are aspects of the “lawbor market,” in particular, that make it particularly susceptible to turmoil: (1) lawyers cannot be subject to non-competes; (2) the attorney-client relationship often seems to be personal not institutional; (3) cash flow for legal services can be highly uneven year-over-year.  So, for example, a partner may have multiple seven-figure revenue years, followed by multiple years of dry spell.  How is this partner’s distribution fairly set?  Not to speak of the fact that there is no hard science, of course, to the determination of which lawyers’ performances truly contributed to firm wealth.

Normally, these events are the subject of intense but quiet activity by the ex-firm and the new firm but sometimes they boil into public view.  Today, the law firm of Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A. sent out notice to “clients and friends” of the abrupt departure of attorney Greg Perleberg to the Lommen Abdo firm.  (Hat-tip to a special ML reader for the tip!)  In the days and weeks to come, some clients will obviously have to pick sides.

(A “pas de deux” is basically a dance duet.)

Sometimes, staring into the eyes of one’s dance partner, one might barely hear the music trail off or notice the lights blinking as the bar signals its last call.

In a wholly different context, civil litigation, the parties may become so entwined in their intense duet that they forget, from time to time, that the Court may wish to cut in. Continue reading →

Update (2/6/2012):  No luck for the Crummy employer.  The trial court’s decision against Enterprise Minnesota was affirmed in all respects. Congratulations to plaintiff’s counsel (and Minnesota Litigator guest poster), T.J. Conley!

Original Post (2/22/2011):  The case of plaintiff/former employee Richard Crummy against his former employer, Enterprise Minnesota, is a sad story, all told, but apparently one with a happy ending for Mr. Crummy (bearing in mind that “appeals happen,” of course).

As Hennepin County Judge Margaret A. Daly saw the case that was tried before her in a three-day bench trial last month, “common sense and good judgment, not to mention compassion,  went out the window” at defendant employer Enterprise Minnesota (“EM”) with substantial harm to Richard Crummy, a sole breadwinner for a family with five children.  Crummy was awarded $251,693 in front/back pay, $40,000 for mental anguish and suffering, and a two-times compensatory damages multiplier for an unfair discriminatory practice by EM ($583,386).  The Court noted that Crummy is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees under the Minnesota Human Rights Act or MHRA.

Twin Cities employment lawyer, T.J. Conley, represented Crummy.   David Duddleston, Managing Partner at the Minneapolis office of the national employment law firm of Jackson Lewis (“All We Do Is Work”) and JL/Mpls associate, Sara Gail Sidwell represented Enterprise Minnesota. Continue reading →

The Minnesota State Bar Association’s “Man in St. Paul,” Bryan Lake reported on Friday, 2-3-20312 that, out of the blocks for this legislative session: by and large, Republican legislators have proposed bills to limit the number of lawsuits and limit the amounts that plaintiffs may recover.  Democrats have opposed the bills.  The bills passed on “mostly along party lines.” (And later, Governor Dayton will veto them?)