Accused Mugger Exonerated by Facebook Alibi

When 19-year-old Rodney Bradford was arrested for a mugging at gunpoint in Brooklyn, he claimed that he was innocent – that he couldn’t have committed the crime, because at 11:50 a.m. when the robbery occurred he was at his father’s home in Harlem. Whereas the statements of his family may not have been as convincing, there was one witness to his alibi that the prosecutors found compelling: Facebook.

Bradford posted a status update on the social networking site at 11:49 a.m. When his lawyer brought this to the district attorney’s attention, Facebook was subpoenaed to verify that the update had indeed been sent from Harlem. Thus, what otherwise would have been just one of a number of seemingly unimportant updates became something critical – an alibi.

Though social networking activity has been included as evidence in criminal cases (for example, the burglar who logged onto Facebook on his victim’s computer), lawyers say that this seems to be the first instance of a Facebook message serving as an alibi. However, with use of the site becoming increasingly prevalent, this sort of legal issue use may be more common in the future.

It is of course conceivable that an Internet user could falsify whereabouts using a social networking site. The simplest way would be to give someone else one’s username and password to post an update from elsewhere. Whereas investigators can verify where an update comes from, verifying who was actually at the computer is a much more difficult problem.

So how much should law enforcement and prosecutors be weighing this type of evidence? With a society of increasingly sophisticated Internet users, technology is showing up more and more in the courtroom – but this means that it could possibly be misused as well.

Former Sears Employee Receives $6.2M in Discrimination Suit

Sears Holdings Corp. has agreed to pay $6.2 million to a disabled worker after allegedly firing him illegally. This record settlement was the largest ever for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that investigates discrimination complaints and files lawsuits on behalf of victims.

Filed in 2004, the lawsuit stated that after John Bava was injured during the course of his job as a repair technician for Sears, the company fired him at the expiration of his workers’ compensation leave. At the age of 58, Bava fell down a flight of stairs at a customer’s home, injuring his back, knees, and wrist. He said that he only found out that he had been fired when his wife’s discount card was rejected.

EEOC released documents during discovery that pointed to hundreds of other employees who faced termination in similar situations; the agency alleged that Sears did not consider reasonable accommodations that would have allowed these injured employees to return to their jobs.

As part of the settlement, a federal judge is requiring Sears to amend its workers’ compensation leave policy to ensure that it abides by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA was enacted in 1990. Title I of the act covers employment, and provides that a covered entity shall not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. This applies to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, termination, workers’ compensation, job training, and other aspects of employment.

Was Sears in the wrong when it came to firing Mr. Bava? At the very least, Sears seemed to think that it wasn’t worth the risk; the company spokesperson stated that the settlement was a way to avoid the time and expense of what could have been a lengthy litigation process.

Of course, it is possible that Mr. Bava’s case could provide precedent for future lawsuits that involve workers’ compensation leave. An attorney for EEOC noted in a statement that the settlement is a “bright line marker” for the fact that “inflexible leave policies” are a violation of federal law. But what constitutes “inflexible”? Could the alterations that Sears makes to its policies provide a benchmark for companies that want to do “just enough” to abide by the ADA? Given the publicity surrounding this case, now might be a good time to examine those company policies.

Baby Einstein Not So Smart: Disney Offers Refunds Following Legal Threats

The Baby Einstein line of multimedia products, launched in 1997 and sold in 2000 to Disney, made lofty claims about how the developmental videos would “facilitate the development of the brain in infants.” However, in recent years the company has scaled back those promises considerably, in part due to allegations of false advertising. Particularly after the American Academy of Pediatrics discouraged television viewing in children under the age of two, there have been questions about whether the videos do more harm than good – and whether consumers have been misled.

In 2006, Disney dropped the term “educational” from the products’ marketing materials when the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) group filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), alleging false and deceptive advertising. The FTC is an independent government agency that promotes consumer protection.

Later that same year, academic studies surfaced revealing that baby videos like those in the Disney line could actually lead to a decrease in language acquisition for toddlers and infants. The FTC subsequently decided that the science was inconclusive, and since Disney had already watered down their marketing campaign (removing overt claims that the videos would improve child development), the agency took no action.

However, it was more recently when CCFC threatened Disney with a class-action lawsuit that the company took the step of offering refunds to customers. Disney is offering refunds or exchanges for any consumers “not satisfied” with their Baby Einstein DVDs that were purchased between June 5, 2004 and September 4, 2009.

Though Disney isn’t admitting any wrongdoing, this is a reminder that consumers are smart to be on their toes about potentially deceptive advertising. Though DVDs might be fairly harmless, something like drugs may not be.

Hydroxycut Alert

When Hydroxycut appeared on the market, it was proclaimed a miracle weight loss product–but could it have done more harm than good?

The reformulated “herbal” supplement replaced the original Hydroxycut ephedra diet pills, which were pulled from the market when the FDA banned the drug. The manufacturer, Iovate Health Sciences, released multiple versions of the new formula to the public, including Hydroxycut Hardcore, which was marketed to bodybuilders.

Despite the favorable Hydroxycut reviews, the product’s reincarnation may not have been much of an improvement with respect to potential health problems, and the FDA issued a health advisory in May of 2009. Liver damage was among the most troubling reports in the warning, including the supplement’s connection to the death of a 19-year-old man. Immediately following the warning, Iovate conducted a massive recall.

While the health complications varied from person to person in the report, symptoms included cardiovascular problems, seizures, insomnia, and rhabdomyolysis, a disease that causes the degeneration of skeletal muscle. Some men and women also cited dangerously low levels of liver enzymes and, as a result of rhabdomyolysis, kidney failure. While Hydroxycut supplements always listed possible side effects–increased sweating, high blood pressure, loss of appetite, and restlessness–the severe reactions in some consumers were far more dangerous, and were not listed as potential side effects. When deciding whether to buy Hydroxycut, many consumers were asking themselves, “Does Hydroxycut work?” but perhaps the more appropriate question would be, “Could it harm me?”

After the recall, Iovate and the FDA have sought to isolate a culprit among the many ingredients in Hydroxycut weight loss pills, but as of yet have been unsuccessful. The many formulas contained a wide variety of herbal extracts, purported fat burners and metabolism boosters (popular among bodybuilders as MuscleTech Hydroxycut), as well as nutrition supplements. One notable ingredient that has been considered closely by the FDA, however, is hydroxycitric acid.

Just months after the ban, Iovate released a new version called Hydroxycut Advanced, which was marketed similarly, but contains none of the ingredients in the banned version. Some consumers have already reported strange side effects, including depression, insomnia, and acute anxiety after using the product.

The product has also been at the center of a series of lawsuits filed by some of the many millions of consumers who had used it over the seven-year run. While only a small percentage of men and women experienced such severe results, the reactions for some were catastrophic, compromising their health for years to come. These individuals have sought compensation for the injuries they received, and with the help of seasoned lawyers and firms, have been able to bring the company to justice.

If you or someone you love has suffered Hydroxycut side effects, it is important that you seek help. First, in order to treat the problem at hand, you should visit your health care practitioner. Their diagnoses and treatment are central to any possible lawsuits.

You have many choices when looking for legal help, and it can seem overwhelming. Using a resource like LegalTube allows you to compare the many liability lawsuit firms available to help you as you seek compensation. Once you find a law firm, they can determine if your case relates to any pending, current, or past investigations. With their help, you may be able to receive compensation for your healthcare costs.

Legal Tube

LegalTube is the only legal directory where finding a lawyer or the answers to your law-related questions is as easy as channel surfing. It’s a way to connect attorneys and potential clients by offering “face time” in the comfort of your living room. We take the headache out of finding a lawyer—no more endless appointments, no more consultation fees, no more time wasted pouring through the Yellow Pages, and most importantly, no more taking the risk of picking a lawyer at random. Needing legal advice is stressful enough already—it’s no time for a blind date!

On LegalTube, not only can you search by location and area of practice to find the perfect attorney for your needs, but you can get answers to common questions and find out more about important legal topics. And it’s as easy as watching TV! You don’t have to read anymore dry legalese; instead, watch and listen as a knowledgeable attorney explains it to you. When you’re searching for an attorney, don’t wait until you go to their office to decide if it’s a match; watch the video instead!

LegalTube is the easiest, friendliest resource on the web for finding the lawyer of your dreams. And while you’re here, be sure to check out our “arresting entertainment” channels. The law doesn’t have to be a headache; sometimes it can even be fun!