Law Enforcement

City of Anaheim Obtains Defense Verdict Based on "Excited Delirium" Defense.

Drummond's four minor children contended that Drummond, who was mentally ill, expired due to a lack of oxygen caused by officers placing excessive pressure on his back and neck.  The County Coroner's official cause of death report chiefly agreed with Plaintiffs' cause of death theory.  Additionally, Drummond's police practices expert testified that the officers should have released pressure on Mr. Drummond, and allowed him to breathe -- particularly after he was handcuffed.  All of the minor children delivered emotional testimony regarding the loss of their natural father.

On the other hand, defense medical experts testified that Mr. Drummond expired due to a lethal combination of cocaine and alcohol -- which put him in a state of “excited delirium.”  Drummond’s intoxication, compounded with his vigorous struggle against officers for nearly 30 minutes, ultimately resulted in a sudden cardiac arrhythmia and arrest, which resulted in brain damage.  The trial featured nationally recognized experts on both sides debating the science of “excited delirium” and the cause of death as either traumatic asphyxiation on the one hand, or sudden cardiac arrest on the other.

For their part, Plaintiffs' medical experts disputed the validity of "excited delirium," or at the very least, its application in this matter.  However, Plaintiffs' cause of death theory , compression asphyxia, was cast into doubt at trial when Mr. Watkins provided the County Coroner with key information concerning Drummond's medical history, which the coroner has never seen prior to his cross-examination. 

After four weeks of trial, the 10 member jury deliberated for approximately 7 hours before returning a complete defense verdict.  United States District Court Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler presided over the trial.

Needless to say, valuable scientific and medical testimony, literature, and exhibits surfaced in this trial which will undoubtedly be of great interest as more and more cases unfortunately arise challenging law enforcement restraint techniques following sudden deaths in custody.

Employment Law

Turnabout is Fair Play?

Proving that irony is alive and well in the field of employment law, recently the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was found to have violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  It seems the EEOC was requiring its employees to earn compensatory time off instead of providing overtime pay when they worked greater than 40 hours per week.  Quite likely, the EEOC will be obligated to pay a significant amount of back wages to its employees.

How to Avoid Problems When Laying Off Employees 

Unfortunately, employee layoffs and force reductions are a not uncommon aspect of the employment landscape these days.  That's why it is extremely important to do whatever you can to eliminate the potential for claims and lawsuits.  Here are some suggestions:  (1)  Avoid having immediate supervisors determine who will be laid off.  Instead, place that decision in the hands of someone who can be considered “neutral.”  (2)  Always carefully review the employee's personnel file for trouble spots.  Look for things such as whether the employee has recently been out on leave, is nearing retirement, or has recently complained about discrimination, harassment or any other illegal activity.  Determine whether the employee has made any such claims to his or her supervisor that have not made it to the personnel file.  (3)  Always consider offering a severance package in exchange for a release of all potential claims. 

Interview Pitfalls

Applicant interviews, if performed properly, are an essential first step to solid hiring decisions.  Part of that is knowing what not to ask.  Off limits are questions soliciting personal information such as sexual orientation and marital status.  There is also certain criminal history background from which employers must stay away.  You can’t ask potential (or current) employees about any arrests or detentions that did not lead to a conviction, or any greater than two year old marijuana convictions.

The Multiplier Effect

Apart from the potential for significant jury verdicts, harassment and discrimination claims also carry with them the threat of six figure attorney fees awards.  Increasing this exposure is the ability of plaintiff’s counsel to request from the court a “fee multiplier.”  A recent Los Angeles County jury award is illustrative of the uphill battle often faced by employers.  In Gonzalez v. Dot-Line Capital Transportation Inc., Plaintiff claimed that he had been sexually harassed by co-workers.  The jury found in his favor but only awarded a total of $25,000.00.  Not a bad result for the employer defendant, right?  Well, when the court was through applying a 1.5 multiplier to the attorney fees requested by Plaintiff, an additional $264,195.00 was added to the judgment.