Courtroom Weekly: Speed limits, sports and sexual harassment

May 30, 2013

by: the State Court Staff

Human trafficking, public education and harassment in the workplace

Courtroom Weekly The latest and greatest in court cases around the nation In this issue... Featured case News from Colorado News from Maryland News from Minnesota News from Maryland

Featured case Wisconsin appellate court hits the brake on speed limit trials   Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals In two separate verdicts, the Wisconsin Appeals Court ruled last week that though drivers may disagree with the speed limit or think they have good reason to disobey it, the law will still hold them accountable. In the case of Tammy Camden, the otherwise life-threatening act of driving 90 MPH in a 55 MPH zone may have been an evasion of a different kind of danger. Claiming that a stalker was following her vehicle, Camden hoped to prove to Circuit Court Judge Craig R. Day in 2012 that the speeding was justified. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in Wisconsin v. Brown (1982) that speeding is legally justifiable when a police officer prompts a driver to do it—but no further provision was made regarding the existence of other justifiable causes, so though Judge Day granted her the ruling in the initial trial, the decision was reversed by Appellate Court Judge Gary Sherman on May 23: “ Extending the 'legal justification' defense established in Brown to include causes other than law enforcement officers would be incompatible with the error-correcting function of this court. Accordingly, because the supreme court has not extended the defense of necessity to apply to civil forfeiture actions for speeding if the cause is someone or something other than a law enforcement officer, I conclude that the circuit court erred in determining that it applied in this case. ” Separately, Jeffrey K. Crossfield, who was caught by Sheriff's Deputy James Hodge driving 50 MPH in a 35 MPH zone in Westport, challenged his charge by questioning the validity of the speed limit itself. He argued that the 35 MPH limit was intended for "semi-urban" districts—and that the stretch of road in question did not qualify. He lost the initial case before Dane County Circuit Court Judge Ellen K. Berz, who disregarded his arguments and the traffic studies he presented. Upon appeal, Appellate Court Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg agreed with the initial verdict. She wrote in an unpublished ruling, “ Crossfield's argument remains without merit, because official signs gave Crossfield notice of the thirty-five-mile-per-hour speed limit. … It follows that the circuit court properly excluded as irrelevant any evidence as to the information that local authorities may have obtained to 'determine and declare a reasonable and safe speed limit,' including studies undertaken, measurements that were taken, and businesses or homes in the area. ”

News from Colorado Current levels of state funding for public education in Colorado is 'constitutional'   Court: Colorado Supreme Court The Colorado Supreme Court has reached a decision in Lobato v. Colorado Board of Education, a case which challenges the sufficiency of state funding for public education. The court held on May 28, 2013, that the state was adequately funding public education (K-12) under the Colorado Constitution. Lobato v. Colorado was filed in 2005 by "Children's Voices." This organization is "a nonprofit law firm of school advocates dedicated to achieving equal access to a high quality public education for all school-age children in Colorado." The suit claimed the state was under-funding its public school system by $4 billion dollars. Initially, the suit was brought by fourteen rural school districts and various parents and children across the state. The lead plaintiff, Terry Lobato, is currently a University of Denver student but attended Center High School which is located in one of the rural districts that originally sued the state. In 2010, however, other school districts became involved, including D-11 in Colorado Springs and Jefferson County, both of which are large, urban school districts. According to the Denver Post, the plaintiffs "wanted the state to set aside the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, which limits state revenues and requires voter approval of tax increases." Center School District Superintendent George Welsh perhaps best summed up how the plaintiffs viewed their case and its objectives, stating, "we've been operating on hope -- hope that someday the kids in our community would get a fair shot, an equal shot." At the trial court level, state funding was found to be constitutional by Judge Sheila A. Rappaport. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed this finding. Justice Nancy Rice "concluded the constitution 'does not demand absolute equality in the state's provision of education services, supplies, or expenditures.'" Justice Rice's opinion also stated: “ While we sympathize with the plaintiffs and recognize that the public school financing system might not provide an optimal amount of money to the public schools, the statutory public school financing system itself is constitutional. ” Gov. John Hickenlooper, who supported the court's ruling, said he believes the current level of state funding, roughly $2,000 per student, is inadequate. The state has looked for ways to increase public education funding in the last year but Gov. Hickenlooper admits the state educational system is still "underfunded". Attorney General John Suthers was pleased by the court's ruling, stating: "[t]he proper bodies to fix this complex policy issue, however, are the general assembly, governor, state and local school boards, teachers, parents, students and the people of Colorado, not lawyers and judges." Children's Voices attorney Kathy Gebhardt was not as happy as Suthers, saying, "[t]here's nothing to celebrate in this ruling." She said it hurts children in rural areas of the state as those areas have no way of raising private funds to supplement state funding. Additionally, Gebhardt says the ruling has the "devastating impact of widening the gap that we already have in Colorado between the haves and have nots."

News from Maryland Nevada man sentenced by Maryland court for human trafficking   Court: Maryland Sixth Circuit Ruling on May 17, 2013 Earlier this month Montgomery County Judge Richard E. Jordan sentenced Jermaine Jack of Reno, Nevada, to 18 months for pimping and prostitution. Jack was caught and extradited to Montgomery County, Maryland after a traveling across the country with up to three women, selling them for sex. After his arrest in August 2012, Jack was charged with three pimping and prostitution charges. He pled guilty to one count of human trafficking and received a 10 year sentence with 8 1/2 years suspended. Jack said that his lifestyle made him ashamed and added that he would change in order to be a better father for his 13-year-old son. Jack's attorney, Megan Coleman, argued that he exploited his victims, but did not force anyone to do anything. “ This is not a case where women were enslaved or abducted. ... We’re truly of the mindset this was the occupation they wanted to have. - Megan Coleman ” Judge Jordan handed down his ruling, saying he chose to impart a lesser sentence so that Jack's son would have a father. “ The other reason is because of your son. ... It’s probably tougher on him if I gave you the maximum than it would be on you. - Judge Richard E. Jordan ”

News from Minnesota Minnesota Supreme Court says 'equal opportunity' harassment not a defense   Court: Minnesota Supreme Court The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed part of a ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on May 22, 2013, when the Supreme Court held that a defendant who was directing sexually explicit behavior at men as well as women in the workplace will not escape a claim for sexual harassment under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Court of Appeals held that Judge Kenneth A. Sandvik, a former Sixth Judicial District judge, erred when Sandvik determined that the sexual harassment in this case was not actionable. According to the Court of Appeals decision, the "district court minimized the effect of [the defendant]'s incessant explicit sexual comments by stating that it was 'widespread throughout the employment setting and not merely directed at females.'" The Court of Appeals decision further stated that employees who suffer from harassment by an "equal opportunity harasser," whose actions are not necessarily based on sex, is still protected by the Minnesota Human Rights Act. While the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals in dealing with an "equal opportunity harasser," the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals determination that the case need only be remanded to enter judgment in favor of the appellants, and determine compensatory and punitive damages. The Supreme Court determined that the errors made at the district level "infected" the District Court's decision to the point that the case would need to be remanded to allow the District Court to apply the appropriate legal standard. Justices Wilhelmina Wright and Paul Anderson disagreed with the Supreme Court's determination that the case should be remanded to the District Court. According to an article on Minnesota Public Radio News Online, Justice Paul Anderson found the decision not to rule "extraordinary". That article also quoted Justice Anderson as saying that the majority seems to be making an "almost heroic effort to ignore the district court's erroneous findings," and that the defendant's behavior in this case was "classical sexually motivated misconduct in the workplace." Anderson, a justice since 1994, stated that he felt this decision represented a step backward in the fight to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace.

News from Maryland The ACC and the University of Maryland square off, but on whose home turf?   Court: Maryland Seventh Circuit A $52 million dollar exit fee is the point of contention between the University of Maryland and the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC). In November of last year, the University announced it was leaving the ACC for the Big Ten which prompted a lawsuit by the ACC for enforcement of their $52 million fee for withdrawing from the conference. The ACC filed suit in North Carolina where it is headquartered and the University responded by filing suit in Maryland, citing the amount of the fee to be illegal. On May 23, 2013, Judge John Paul Davey of the Prince George’s County Circuit Court in Maryland heard each party’s arguments. Counsel for the ACC asked the judge to wait until the lawsuit in North Carolina was at an end before making a determination whether or not to hear the suit in Maryland, which they argued was filed to give the University a home field advantage. The University of Maryland argued that the two suits are different and based their main arguments primarily under the Maryland Antitrust Act, stating that the ACC’s fee was punitive in nature and would cause injury to the University, its athletics department, and its students. The University, in their complaint, accuses the ACC of aiming “to send a message of deterrence to any other member school that might consider withdrawing from the conference -- any such attempts to do so will be met with harsh penalties.” Furthermore, they claim that the ACC has illegally withheld $3 million of revenue owed to the University – money that the ACC has withheld to apply towards the exit fee. As for the ACC, it argued, inter alia, that the University’s antitrust claims are unconstitutional because they interfere with the ACC’s ability to engage in interstate commerce and unduly burdens its activities in the other six states in which the ACC operates. The ACC also argued that the University fails to state a significant injury under the Maryland Antitrust Law since “there is nothing anti-competitive about the withdrawal payment… [i]t is merely a method of internal governance used by the ACC.” In sum, the ACC asked Judge Davey to dismiss the suit in Maryland or, alternatively, halt the proceedings in Maryland until there was first a resolution in North Carolina. Judge Davey’s opinion is still pending. Ultimately, however, it will be just the first ruling in what many fear will be a lengthy legal battle.

See also

• Courtroom Weekly